Pelosi Says Iraq Is Not "a War To Win"
Wednesday, November 8, 2006 at 08:30PM Nancy Pelosi was interviewed on Fox Report tonight and asked what her plan for victory in Iraq would look like. After a few seconds of stammering, the obvious awkward moment ended. Here's Nancy Pelosi on defining victory in Iraq:
“The point is this isn’t a war to win, it’s a situation to solve. And you define ‘winning’ any way you want, but you must solve this problem.”
"This isn't a war to win"? This is the next SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES? We're doomed. This shows how out of touch some Americans are, not recognizing that we are literally at war with an enemy. How does one "solve" an enemy? You can't. You defeat the enemy. Victory is winning.
The video:
Discover the Network put it this way:
"Bipartisanship" has been a keyword in many of Pelosi's speeches. In an address she delivered in 2002, for instance, she remarked, "We must stand together in a bipartisan way to fight the war against terrorism." Though she supported the Clinton Administration's military actions in Haiti, Kosovo, and Bosnia, she has denounced both the 1991 and 2003 wars in Iraq. Pelosi has also opposed President George W. Bush on most issues of Homeland Security, and has most recently joined the ACLU's crusade to limit the powers of the Patriot Act.
Hypocrisy anyone?
Here are some highlights from Nancy Pelosi’s winning voting record:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How’s that for defining winning?
(IF YOU LIKE THIS ARTICLE AND HAVE A REAL CLEAR POLITICS ACCOUNT, PLEASE CONSIDER VOTING FOR IT. CLICK HERE)
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/763176
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (58)
Marc Sandalow, San Francisco Chronicle reporting, ELECTION 2006 America's referendum on war, Pelosi's countdown: She ticks off a list of changes, including a new Iraq strategy ( Washington DC: Washington Bureau Chief, Sunday, November 5, 2006) [accessed online].
AubreyJ.........
A timeline for complete Iraqi control is in store. That would include gradually decreasing the amount of troops OVER TIME.
A wall on the border, come on! Did it work in Berlin?
Spending on CIA and WAR, regardless of what you think on the issue you must realize that the direction on this is more government, not less.
It just seems odd that the party of small government is choosing the anti-big government bills to harrange the democratic canidate. I don't know, I am a stupid person according to some here, so maybe that is why it seems ironic.
I linked to you on today's post, Amy, for the Nancy Pelosi stupidity. Thanks. ;)
Difference being the above are actually the government's job according to the Constitution, whereas the big-government social programs of the liberal side of things most certainly are not.
Gayle, you might be right and this could make this transition tolerable. Democrats are like Arabs: they lie about their enemy and act as if what they're saying is true, but they look RIDICULOUS doing it. Remember Baghdad Bob in 2003? "We have defeated the American Army. We are victorious!" Give me a break! That's what these Democrats are like. They say idiotic things like, "Bush is a war criminal and must be impeached" or "Rusmfeld should be put in jail" with no evidence or reality to back up their claims. They just pick their reality, name it and claim it, and believe it into being. They are totally unprofessional from the way they conduct their business to the way they express themselves. For now, this is what America wants, but it's going to be fun watching the Dems step in it and even more fun pointing it out.
Irony, as for the chart, Pelosi believes on EVERYTHING BUT protecting America. Isn't that clear?
Sure, no wall, you're right. Letting illegals come right in and get an education, job and health care while I pay for it is much better. Did you know that 80% of all Los Angeles violence... gang, rape, murder.... is committed by ILLEGALS? But you're right, we wouldn't want to end up like East Berlin. Of course, as Gayle pointed out, the walls have different purposes. We're not trying to keep Americans in, we're keeping illegals out. The Berlin Wall didn't to keep people out, it kept people in.
Do I hear you right? Are you saying that NOT funding the war and intelligence (CIA) will promote victory? Or are you saying you don't care about victory in the war on terror? I remember Brother Bill Clinton and his disdain for big government....yep, he cut 250,000 federal jobs and boasted cutting pork. Except that he cut military jobs, not government jobs. Jerk! Military are not civilian, government jobs as he wanted us to believe are civilian.
It seems odd to you that Republicans choose bills like not funding the war on terror and intelligence to "harrange" the democratic candidate? They aren't "big government" bills, Irony. Remember the Republican initiative/bill of the '90's called WELFARE REFORM? That is anti-big government. And I heard a figure that the US welfare rolls have been cut by 70%. Before you cry about how mean Republicans are to throw the poor out on the sidewalk you might want to check the unemployment rate. Cutting the military isn't the same as cutting welfare, my friend.
- At the same time, many of the incoming Junior Senators are a great deal more moderate than the hard left group they’ll be joining, which isn’t going to be easy to manage. Pelosi has her work cut out for her, without even thinking about distractions.
- So their path is clear. Either they really join the Reps in true non-partisan fashion, or squander their chances for a real run in ‘08. Anyone that continues to yammer of petty vengence is doing his or her party a great disservice, and blocking the wheels of future Democratic progress.
- Of course I fully expect the SecProgg hard left to try to burn down the barn, when they see they’re not going along on the hayride. Remember, with the Proggs, it’s all about ideology. America, it’s safety and future, is of no concern. It’s not the America they want anyway, so its just another means to thier ends. But the core moderates have the real power, and no excuse now, if they fail.
- From this point on, until the '08 elections are history, the extremes on both sides are irrelevant. The Dems used the hard Left for their purposes, but now if they expect any chance in '08 they can't afford the craziness anymore. Say goodbye to the hard left.
My take on the election:
- Big winners - Independents/classic Liberals/Libertarians/moderate Conservatives…
- Big losers - SecProggs/Fundie Conservatives/anything greater than +/- 35% from the middle.
- Mainstream America has had it. The message is "cut out the crap, and take care of business".
- The ‘08 winners will be the group that doesn’t BS itself on what this vote “means”, and gets the message of the electorate.
- People I talk to inside the beltway, tell me that the Dem core political advisors are warning Pelosi, and Reid, to move the party to the center as quickly as possible and get some specific plans together as talking points, sideline the hard left dribble, forget all the carping and vengence nonsense, and try ernestly to get things done, or kiss ‘08 goodbye.
- Wonder if they’ll be smart enough to heed their own peoples advice. We’ll see. It’s put up, or shut up time for the Dems on the real issues, and they don’t have a lot of time to look like they have a plan.
I know you would love to be able to kill everyone in the world that doesn't look like you, talk like you, think like you but that really isn't going to happen.
If another country unilaterally invaded America and killed your family and friends what would you do!!!!!!!
If Americans did what the Iraqi insurgents are doing now after America was attacked, you would hail them as the supreme patriots.
I think the major problem is with your ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes.
What would you do if America was attacked, and how would that be any different than what is going on in Iraq?
Bloodshed just creates more bloodshed...always has and always will.
- Two words - "cream their butts" (try to think 9/11 instead of 9/10. come on. I know you can do it.)
"I think the major problem is with your ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes."
Wow, what a statement. It's the LIBS unable to put themselves in the IRAQIS shoes. Do you have any idea what these people went through under Saddam? How can any bleeding heart liberal say he has compassion when he allowed Saddam, U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution, to continue to brutalize Iraqis and his neighbors?
It is compassion than let us into Iraq, purely in humanitarian terms.
I remember in early 2003 before the war started, a U.N. inspector van was visiting an Iraqi site to be inspected and the U.N. was turned away. There was an Iraqi man pleading with the U.N. not to leave him, as he was escorted away by Iraqi "officials". It was clear what was going on: the man was going to be shot by the officials for some sort of offense after the U.N. left and the camera was off. The Iraqi cried and tried to get into the U.N. van, but it pulled away and he was hysterical. It was heart wrenching.
So yes, sir, we put ourselves in HIS shoes. Have you?
- I can tick that off with a check mark on my list of predictions. The hard Left is toast.
I have actually decided to do something (apparently) surprising to some of my blog-o-buddies and friends. I am going to (force myself to) give Pelosi and company the benefit of the doubt. For now.
They get to show me what they can do...it starts in January and I will not have a great deal of patience.
Everyone knows that I am definitely NO FAN of Nancy Pelosi. But if I am being honest, it took some gumption for her to do what she has done. She is on record promising to work with "Our President" and as SOH to forego any "revenge" against Republicans...and to take "Impeachment off the table" (for which she is catching hell from some lefties, apparently).
Bottom line on Nancy - I don't know about her sudden affible and conciliatory nature (in fact, if I was a betting man...?), but because she did what she did and said what she said, I will take a long breath and be as optimistic as possible for now. Frankly, I hope she meant every single word and will work with the GOP and the President. Time will tell.
On the Republicans, most of us in this discussion (whether we admit it or not) have been disappointed with them these past six years. So much could have been accomplished if they had just stuck to their conservative base and supported our President. The Democrats are no better, and they didn't really win this election - the GOP lost it.
Meantime, I think this was a good time for Rummy to take his leave and to bring new blood (and ideas) into managing this tough conflict. He was the right man for the job at the time, but we are at a different place now. Whether we like it or not, America has spoken and we need to remember that democracy is what makes us who were are - and what makes the rest of the world wish they could be like us.
As Reagan said "Trust - but verify!"
Timmer
I've been doing that long before she became Speaker.
"The GOP has lost most of it's moderate members and is now further to the right than it has probably ever been. This will not bode well for GOP hopes for '08."
It'll get them elected, just like it always has. The GOP has been acting liberalish lately, and we conservatives cleaned house.
"I know you would love to be able to kill everyone in the world that doesn't look like you, talk like you, think like you but that really isn't going to happen."
The amount of retardation in this statement cannot be calculated. Come at us with something real.
"I think the major problem is with your ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes."
Like all the Iraqis who aren't been gassed and tortured to death anymore. What bastards we Americans are.
Regarding Iraq specifically, the Democrats’ plan has two parts. First, they want Iraqis to “assum[e] primary responsibility for securing and governing their country.” Then they want “responsible redeployment” (great euphemism) of American forces.
Older readers may recognize this formula. It’s Vietnamization—the Nixon-Kissinger plan for extracting us from a previous mistake. But Vietnamization was not a plan for victory. It was a plan for what was called “peace with honor” and is now known as “defeat.”
The Writer on this is Michael Kinsley. He published it in Slate on Nov 6th. You could hardley call him a Conservative hack attacking the grandmother of surrender... Cindy Sheehan has dibs on Surrender Mom.. http://morningcoffee.wordpress.com/2006/11/07/the-dem-plan-on-iraq-or-lack-of-plan/
Amy, this woman is taking her talking points right out of Kerry's book. Hon, she said what she said in this video, and on the same day, yesterday, she said that in order to win this war we needed double the amount of troops we had. So what is she saying? Who knows... not I! The woman herself can't make up her mind. Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop! And it's going to get worse.
Ah, one of the favorite refrains of the left. Everyone is intolerant but them. Unless of course you don't tow the party line, or are a person of color who is conservative. Then it is perfectly OK to throw you over the ledge (i.e. Lieberman) or make racist statements or cartoons of you (ie Michael Steele and Condi Rice). I guess tolerance has it's limits
I cannot say that I have been to Iraq. However I have been in close support of those who are, or who were, at least one of who did not make it back alive. One gentleman I know is on his third tour. They paint a picture quite different from that I see in the paper and on the tube. Needless to say, they have my trust more than the 'reporters'. And certainly more than most of the politicians. I am sure there are some Iraqis who fight against us in Iraq beacause they see us as invaders to their country. However I would venture that it is an small percentage of those who fight. The larger percentage are those who fight out of an ideology that is as perverse to us as was that which we fought against during WWII. A look at the Japanese Empire will draw some eerie parallels to what we face today.
There are those today who believe that we should disarm or never fight. Jim's statement is a prime example:
"Bloodshed just creates more bloodshed...always has and always will."
Very simplistic way to view it. In an ideal world, such things might work. However this is the real, imperfect world. There was a man who spoke out against our foriegn involvement during the depression. General Smedley Butler, a marine, a Quaker, had fought in a number of major engagements the US had been in, having enlisted at the age of 16 to fight in the Spanish American War. He began to realize many of these were more to protect companys property than to protect American citizens. He became quite outspoken against war in his retirement, but had this to say about being able to abolish war:
"There is no use talking about abolishing war; that's damn foolishness. Take the guns away from men and they will fight just the same. . . ."
He ended the speech with:
"Pacifists? Hell, I'm a pacifist, but I always have a club behind my back!"
Note that he was a staunch Democrat and a very visible supporter of FDR, not a "right wing nut job" But he would be classified as such by many today.
I would like to see the democracy take in Iraq. Not because we could count on them in a fight. I doubt that we could. However freedom, and the right to choose those who will govern over you is something stronger than any bullet or bomb. It threatens the very soul of the dictators and radical mullahs that control much of the mideast. The tyrants and the radicals know this, and this is why Iraq is the battleground it is.The people realize it and that is why they risked life and limb to vote. It would have been better had the Iraqis themselves rose up and took down Sadaam, but I believe that the type of organization that it would have required to do so would have left them with an SSDG - Same SH-- Different Guy.
Make no mistake. We will face this enemy and have to fight him. Question is, do we do it now while we have the advantage, or do we wait until they have ganed technological parity of sorts? In which case, it will take a similar effort to what we had to expend to defeat the Japanese.
1. Imposing extreme terrorism on the native population. Keep in mind terrorism means the imposition of fear to achieve an objective.
2. Completely outnumbering the local population.
3. Extraordinary craft in manipulating the local population including (a) exploiting existing differences among the native population
b) Psychologically imposing a new set of desirable standards upon the local population that can only be satisfied by continued occupation or dependence.
Unfortunately, we do not have the first two tools at our disposal. In examining the third option, we find ourselves in the position where we have already muddied the water and cannot retrace those steps. This has been complicated by the previously existing hatreds that create tremendous anarchy.
Some examples of successful occupations are:
1. England’s conquest and occupation by the Normans where extreme terrorism was used.
2. Australia and North America where outnumbering and terrorism worked.
3. Hawaii and Puerto Rico where manipulation worked very well.
The examples of failures are indeed numerous, however to name a few:
1. Japanese, the Mongols and Manchurians failure in China where even with extreme terrorism the success lasted sometime but eventually ended.
2. Former Soviet Republics limited success even though extraordinary terrorism was used.
3. Moors on the Iberian Peninsula.
4. British and Russian occupation in Afghanistan.
Some examples of qualified successes and potential future failures.
1. China in Tibet where outnumbering and terrorism is being used.
2. Israel/Palestine where extraordinary terrorism and outnumbering are being used.
3. Most of the Former British Empire. The Jury is out on this one. It could be argued with the continued existence of the Commonwealth, and economic dependence of some former colonies, that the British were really successful. Their occupation of the former colonies still yields them tremendous advantages in terms of access to raw materials and ready markets for their products. In my opinion, it could be called a success. The British have to given credit for effectively using every one of the above strategies. The British were also the very best at using craft to their advantage.
To get back to our situation in Iraq, we are working against history. We are merely trying to save face. We are eventually going to have to leave. The differences these people have will continue after we have left. The only good solution that presents itself is to install a Sadam like character that will meet out the type of extreme cruelty that is needed to keep the lid on this powder keg. I do not say this lightly. I hate this solution, but this is what works in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. That is what worked before in Iraq and at some point in Iran. George Bush Sr. and Colin Powell were much smarter than given credit. History will remember them much more favorably than us.
To cut to the chase, Nancy Pelosi is 75% correct; there is no war to win. And history will also remember her statement well.
How do we end this occupation? First, we must accept that we won the war against Iraq. Second, we must accept that US is carrying an occupation in Iraq and not a war. Therefore, Iraq is not and cannot be another Vietnam. Third, the US occupation may take decades, trillions of dollars and many more thousands of dead and injured soldiers without achieving its goal of a stabilized country. Why?
Because, many Muslims worship Alah by doing war as Israelites did in the Old Testament. Sectarian violence is a violent expression of the Muslim faith, heart and culture which are established since 630 AD.
For this reason the US army cannot change the hearts and culture of these people. Instead, the occupation gives them more earnest motivation to express their violent faith. This is the conclusion clearly stated by an intelligent report on disclosed last September.
Since, we cannot change them by military might we should end the occupation by getting other Muslims and Arab countries to take role the of peace keepers and if they fail it would be their fault because it would be a failure of the Muslim world and not the result of a mismanagement from the West.
Then all the money, human and military resources that would be spent in the occupation can be used to strenghten our security, ports, borders and fight terrorits with technology, intelligence and other effective means, while we take away motivation from Muslims to fight us in and outside Iraq. Also, the money saved from the end of the cocupation should be invested to find oil and to improve technology to make it less dependent on oil.
Yet there is a possiibility to stabilize Iraq which is to rule it with an iron hand as Saddam Hussein did. This means to kill scores of Iraqis to control them. .
We are standing in the middle of the street. The Mack truck is coming. What do we do? Call the driver on the cell phone, wave him to stop, call a fighter up to drop a bomb on him. I think it is just easier to get the hell outta there.
Wow, what a statement. It's the LIBS unable to put themselves in the IRAQIS shoes. Do you have any idea what these people went through under Saddam? How can any bleeding heart liberal say he has compassion when he allowed Saddam, U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution, to continue to brutalize Iraqis and his neighbors?
Oh sorry...... I forgot that today's reason we invaded Iraq was for humanitarian reasons.
First it was WMD...complete BS...then it was involvement with 9/11...complete BS, then it was Al Quada ties...complete BS,...mushrooms clouds over America..complete BS... and now it is humanitarian reasons.
I am sure that the families of the 150,000 plus Iraqis that have been killed since the US invasion are terribly greatful for our humanitarian efforts, especially the 80% that want us out now and the 60% that want to see American solders killed.
I am sure that since the REAL reason we invaded Iraq was humanitarian, I am sure that Darfur can expect a US invasion any day.
The point I was trying to make about the insurgency was that if another country invaded America, we would all be right in defending our country, but the invaders would be the ones calling us "terrorists" on their equivalent of Faux news.
Keep the blindfold on and keep drinking the Kool-aid.
Tolerance -- with statements like this you have no right to claim tolerance. I can't blame your ideas on your party, this bigotry is your own. You are conflating racism and politics in a way that I can hardly believe that you would put in writing.
As for big/small gov. I did not qualify my statement. I don't like big government even if that government is killing people you don't like. There is no way to win in Iraq, we have debated that 2 days ago on another post. You believe there is a way to win, but all you can say about winning is to offer some phantom utopia. I watched a movie on Nixion yesterday. It is suprising how similar the debate in the country is to the debate then. One of the lines to Nixion, "you couldn't even end this war if you wanted to, could you?"
Amy, I don't beleive for one minute that you don't understand the problems with Iraq. In your more calm and less racist moments you have admited how much you do understand the problems. To stick to the republican party line of 2003 regardless of how the world changes around you, will not only serve to make you an extremeist, but it will make you increasingly out of touch with the very mechanism which would normally allow you to update your beliefs.
Iraq is a failure. I wish I could convince you and other's like you of that before you must see more American's die. I wish you would understand before more terrorists join up to kill the empire which thinks they can export democracy. (BTW tim, there is an established literature on this point of view which you could easily find if you wanted to, so your challenges of creditiability are as empty as your insults). I wish you would see the current civil war in Iraq as the failed policy of the US. All these things will become clear in time and I ask you how you are going to explain them to yourself in 10 years? How are you going to explain what history judges as the most tragic example of hubris in American History?
You can say all you want about soldiers and war and how killing is nobel because you have to go stand in a desert and get shot at as well. That is a tautology. You assume the very conclusion you want as a premise. I wouldn't want to do that job, but that doesn't mean that I don't have very close friends who do take that job seriously. I am very interested in their reasons for going. Many agree with my politics, but still go. Some just like war and would fight anywhere regardless of cause. Some see it as a career advancement technique. Some genuinely belive like your family that they are doing something nobel. There are no simple answers.
I reject categorically your description of producers of freedom. Look at the founding fathers. Who was a bigger producer of freedom? Madison or Washington?
To give you a harder contrast -- Hamilton or Jefferson.
War and defense are one part of the package. No one denys that. War has a production function and an economy just like any other area. I don't box, but that doesn't mean that I haven't or wouldn't if my life was different. I feel the same way about war. What I do reject, and the thing which make me feel compelled to respond to your website is that you seemingly want to exhalt one choosen profession above others.
I am not going to ask you to admit that lawyers, teachers, political adviors, grocery clerks, and many other professions are all equally crucial to the survival of society as the one you glorify, liberty must exist broadly. Adam Smith chose the Butcher and the Baker as self-interested and thereby the creators of plenty (book I.ii). I already know that you understand this in some deep sense.
The difference between rehtoric and practice is vast. I lobby for the recognition of a more complicated world, I wish you would apply your not inconsiderable talents in a more complex analysis of the world. There is no reason to loose your convictions, but the ideology serves no purpose.
That was one of the most uninformed statements of all time. If you actually listen to everything Bush said pre-war, there were 17 counts against Saddam to invade, chief among these the 14 Gulf War ceasefire treaties that all the stupid U.N. resolutions in the world wouldn't fix. Liberals need to focus on everything Bush said instead of just bits and pieces.
"I am sure that the families of the 150,000 plus Iraqis that have been killed since the US invasion are terribly greatful for our humanitarian efforts"
According to them, they are.
"Iraq is a failure. I wish I could convince you and other's like you of that before you must see more American's die."
So you equate casualties=failure? So a successful war would be where zero Americans were killed? Yeah, I'd like that too.
"In your more calm and less racist moments you have admited how much you do understand the problems."
If you want to appear to have even a smidgen of credibility at this point, you'll post specifically where Amy was at all racist in any moment.
I agree with most that major changes in the fight are needed. But... ‘A Change in Course in Iraq,’ is a political talking point... NOT A PLAN! Pulling back from Iraq is not a plan either...
AubreyJ.........
"Democrats are like Arabs: they lie about their enemy and act as if what they're saying is true" - Amy Proctor
Newsflash to Irony: That's not racism. Check your dictionary:
racism: 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
So where did Amy illustrate that her race is superior?
I can add the likes of Ahmadinejad (who is a Persian, not an Arab), Hugo Chavez, and any number of Democrats who demagogue in the same way.
This has nothing to do with racism. It is not I who think Iraqis, who are clearly not white, don't deserve the same chance at a life of freedom as Americans.
You might want to reword that just a bit Amy.LoL.
Amy's note: Thanks for pointing that out, Tim. ;)
WMD were not complete BS. Look, even the New York Times showcased Iraqi documents that essentially showed pre-2003 Iraq had more developed nuclear know-how than Iran and North Korea. This sustains the international belief that Saddam Hussein was indeed capable of and engaging in the development of a nuclear program. My husband's husband's unit in Baghdad, summer 2003, found quantities of chemcial and biological weaponry buried in the back yards of Baath Party Members. There is also credible intelligence from higher up Iraqi scientists and military leaders that say Saddam transferred what he had to Damascus, Syria. Many other people believed that, including Ariel Sharon of Israel. Regardless of that, even if there were no WMD, Saddam LED EVERYONE TO BELIEVE THAT HE POSSESSED THEM. When my hubby was sitting in a fox hole between Kuwait and Iraq at the onset of the war, Saddam said he would use WMD on the troops. Immediately afterwards, scuds were lobbed at US forces on the boarder. Remember the troops in their chemical suits? What that a fraud or a show for the cameras? There is no doubt that Iran, Iraq and N. Korea are the "axis of evil" and that Iraq was leading the pack in nuclear ambitions. This is just a fact.
Saddam offered Osama bin Laden asylum in Iraq in 1999 when he was evading arrest from the US. http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/
Your logic is no better than that this: a man says he's going to murder his girlfriend on Thursday but the cops can't do anything until the crime is committed. If you were the woman, would you prefer preemptive interference or take your chances with a man whose been violent in the past?
No one ever claimed Saddam was involved with 9/11 directly, but he had Osama to Baghdad pre-9/11 and Al-Zarqawi went to the Baghdad hospital in 2001 after an injury sustained by fighting in Afghanistan with US troops. Saddam was certainly friendly with their agenda if not them themselves. Here is how Saddam supported 9/11:
http://www.johnnyproctor.com/sqsp2/fullsizedmural.jpg
The Al-Qaeda connection is a fact as well, but it wasn't a collaboration, rather a link.
Humanitarian reasons are also a part of the war in Iraq. You have to understand that this is comprehensive, not one dimensional. There are many reasons for liberating Iraq. Here are a couple more:
12 years of Iraq firing at US Air Force planes in the No-Fly Zone (1991-2003).
-Saddam Hussein’s assassination attempt on George Bush Sr. in Kuwait in 1993. That would be considered an act of aggression.
-The U.N. refused to enforce it’s resolutions against Iraq and failed to make Saddam comply. The international community was totally limp. Pres. Bush enforced the U.N. resolutions as a leading member of the U.N.
-Saddam paid $25000 to the families of terrorists who’d blow themselves up while killing as many Jews as possible. (Israel is an ally)
What's so hard to understand here?
“The lady has not even picked up the gavel yet and you are bashing her everyway you can think of. Remember it has been the Democratic Party that has moved closer to the center, The GOP has lost most of it's moderate members and is now further to the right than it has probably ever been. This will not bode well for GOP hopes for '08.”
I couldn’t disagree more.
1) Nancy Pelosi has a legacy she’s left behind in the Congress like a slimy slug trail. It isn’t as if anyone’s jumping to conclusions about her! I’ve “bashed” her long before Tuesday.
2) The Republicans lost the election because conservatives, THEIR BASE, were disillusioned with the Republican Senators, Congressmen and Governors who are moderate and abandoning the Republican base.
3) The Democratic Party is moving closer to the LEFT fringe, not the center. Comments by Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Rangel, Durbin, Kennedy, Kerry, etc., etc., etc. sustain the far left agenda of abortion on demand (to include partial birth abortion), nutty left wing conspiracy theories on everything from national security (Pres. ‘spying on innocent Americans’) to 9/11 (‘it was an inside job’) and compromising national security (supporting the NYTimes right to sabatage the war effort in the name of free speech, promoting giving terrorists US Constitutional rights, trying to thwart the Patriot Act)… the list goes on and on.
The GOP needs to lose MORE of its moderate members and start concentrating on its conservative ones.
They will go along with some of the leadership's agenda, such as a small increase in the minimum wage, more business regulations, etc. They will <i> not </i> go along with terrorists' rights, or gutting the Patriot Act.
Its not hatred to disagree, and the disagreement comes from the fact that the DNC has no interest in protecting America but basking in political power and glory.
kb
p.s. I'm a liberal. I voted for republicans on tuesday. I wonder if you voted democrat?
By the way, I visited your repulsive site and have no doubt in my mind that you did NOT vote for Republicans on Tuesday.
You might want to read my Rules of Engagment before posting here again.
Your understanding (or lack thereof) of conservatives and women is very sad. Conservatism has produced some of the most brilliant minds in the world, and they have been women. Condi Rice, Margaret Thatcher, various successful and articulate pundits as well as politicians. Liberalism has produced JOCEYLYN ELDERS and yes, Nancy Pelosi, whose sophomoric and shrill demeanor makes all women look bad.
Your description of conservative women as being only good for cooking and breeding shows that YOU are the one who needs to get your head out of the stone age.
Let's just say this, that I love "breeding and cooking", does liberalism support this? It does the opposite. I grew up in a feminist household and it was NOT liberating or inclusive. Liberalism is far narrower and confining, for if you have principles are you immediately discounted as brain dead. Liberalism has a sick superiority complex that talks downo to those they proport to help.
Hey, did you catch Charlie Rangel's comments about Mississippi the other day? Howard Dean is a peach too, isn't he?
"does liberalism support this?
Apparently not to some Philiberlosophers. I’m a good cook, and I do not mind doing the cooking. Yet, the breeding part, Well, I’m quite done in for that area, can’t do that.
There is, in my opinion, no substantial difference between "...this isn’t a war to win, it’s a situation to solve." and "War? What War?"