Pelosi Says Iraq Is Not "a War To Win"
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
Amy Proctor
58 Comments
20 References
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to FriendReferences (20)
-
Response: Nancy Pelosi: Iraq Is Not A War To Win -
Response: Pelosi Says Iraq Is Not “A War To Win”“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.”
-
Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi on 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.” California Conservative watches the interview and concludes, “We’re doomed.”
-
Response: Democrats take control of the SenateAnd then there's Pajamas Media with:
-
Response: Pelosi Says Iraq Is Not “a War To Win”Hat Tip to California Conservative...
-
Response: Liberal LunacyFrom Amy Proctor's blog "Bottom Line Up Front"
-
If they do not listen to the Generals and the people ON THE GROUND in Iraq, then once again, they are doing the exact same thing they "claimed" the president was doing before the elections. Rock meet hard place.One has to wonder if Hillary has any ...
-
Response: Iraq, Propaganda, and IgnoranceIRAQ - Now that the election is over, many are calling for the US to withdraw from Iraq. Nancy Pelosi is one of the biggest advocates of cutting and running. As she said, "I am what I am... I am determined to get us out of Iraq."
-
Response: DropshippingDropshipping
-
Here's more news on Iraq that will surely send Nancy and Harry into despair: Nearly 6,000 Sunni Arab residents joined a security pact with American forces Wednesday in what U.S. officers described as a critical step in plugging the remaining escape routes for extremists flushed from former strongholds. The new alliance ...
-
Response: Venture CapitalVenture Capital
-
Response: Telesales UKTelesales UK
-
Response: Resort Hotels FinanceResort Hotels Finance
-
Response: Project VCProject VC
-
Response: Construction FundingConstruction Funding
-
Response: Subdivision FundingSubdivision Funding
-
Response: Commercial LendingCommercial Lending
-
Response: Hard Money LenderHard Money Lender
-
Response: VC FundingVC Funding
-
Response: internet marketing mlmThis ia a good website.
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 o