Nancy Pelosi: Jerk
America's Mother-in-Law Says the President Risks Troops' Lives for Politics
By Mark I Posted in Democrats — Comments (48) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This morning, Good Morning America featured an interview with House Speaker and America’s Mother-in-Law™, Nancy Pelosi. The interview was conducted by a fawning Diane Sawyer and was meant to be a victory lap for the speaker upon the completion of her “100 Hours” agenda. But it quickly turned ugly.
In answer to a question about the troop surge in Iraq, the gentle, motherly, caring and nurturing grandmother Pelosi uttered what I consider the most repugnant, vile, and distasteful statement yet made by an elected Democrat about the president and the war.
Read on…
When asked about Democrats’ plans to challenge the Bush Administration’s plan for a troop surge in Iraq, here is what the Speaker had to say: [transcribed from video]
SAWYER: Are you going to move to cut off funding for troops going into Iraq as part of the surge?
PELOSI: No, Democrats will never cut off funding for our troops when they are in harm’s way. But we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war. He has dug a hole so deep he can’t even see the light on this. It’s a tragedy. It’s a stark blunder.
SAWYER: Are you acquiescing in the surge? Because the pocketbook is the only other control mechanism.
PELOSI: The president knows that because the troops are in harm’s way that we won’t cut off the resources. That’s why he’s moving so quickly to put them in harm’s way.
SAWYER: Are you saying that the president deliberately manipulated the timing that he sent the troops in, in order to avoid Congressional action?
PELOSI: Well, I would certainly hope that he didn’t manipulate the timing of sending the troops in. I think he could have told us about it sooner and invited any comments we might have had, any constructive proposals we might have had. We found out about it as the troops were going in.
Allow me to translate that. Pelosi just accused the president of deliberately putting soldiers and Marine’s lives at stake to forestall the Democrats’ political agenda. That’s right. Pelosi is so hateful toward the president, and so convinced that the mission in Iraq has already failed, that she is willing to accuse him of sending brave men and women to their deaths in Iraq, for politics.
Make no mistake that is exactly what she meant when she said the president was moving quickly “to put them in harm’s way.” She may not have liked the taste of those words when Sawyer followed up with their clear implication, but she said it nonetheless.
Speaker Pelosi, you are a despicable jerk for leveling this contemptible charge against the president. If you had one shred of the principle and conviction that the Commander-in-Chief has, you would vote to cut off funding for the entire Iraq War. Your words betray your belief that the war is already lost. Show the guts and toughness you are so rumored to possess and take away the money. Since you won’t do this, isn’t it really you, Speaker, who is playing politics with the troops' lives? Isn’t it really you who is willing to risk their safety for partisan political advantage?
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Just Stop It — Comments (9) »
Nancy Pelosi: Jerk 48 Comments (0 topical, 48 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Pelosi and her ilk are vile and repugnant, but most of all, this is yet another example of their projection, their psychosis. The inmates truly are running the asylum. sigh.
The American people chose to put the "vile and repugnant" inmates in control of the asylum. What's that say about the former handlers?
Of course Pelosi would say that Bush timed this deliberately, putting troops in harms way. I'd expect her to say that, since she has the ethics of a gutter rat. The bigger problem is when she refers to Iraq as "his war" - sadly true, because the donks haven't lifted a finger to support the GWOT. That recent Fox poll suggests about half of them would be happy for us to lose, and I think that's a pretty accurate reflection of Congress as well. These are not only misguided Americans, these are bad Americans. The old-fashioned word is "traitor."
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
I feel bad for saying this, but it kind of does look like her.
Not that there is anything wrong with looking like that....
...ever since Pelosi has been a fixture on the TV, I've been trying to figure out who or what it was she reminded me of. Yesterday it struck me that Pelosi bears some resemblance to the Salt Creature from a very early episode of Star Trek. I'm not a Trekkie, but that one episode stuck with me for some reason. I did a quick search, found the picture that confirmed my recollection and...voila!
Being reminded that the Salt Creature had the ability to appear to each individual as someone different, making it easier for her to kill by sucking the salt from her victims only added to the sim-hilarity.
"It never hurts to remind those who would vote for your opponent to vote...on Wednesday" - TMYN Blog
Do you have any evidence that Pelosi's claim is false.
According to reports a senior administration official said the surge was "more of a political decision than a military one
because the American people have run out of patience and President Bush is running out of time to achieve some kind of success in Iraq"
Sounds like the administration agrees with Pelosi.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/
that the other senior administration official reported in this story was really a barista at Starbucks.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
I don't think that counts as evidence.
Your inability to weigh evidence and your willingness to believe what ever you want, goes along way to explaining how you people managed to lose two wars in two terms.
Why is it "You people" are so all fired up about making sure we do lose?
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
...and a question for the ages.
--
"I will guarantee you that John Kerry will be president of the United States." - Nancy Pelosi
Democrats can not "make sure" of anything about these wars. From Jan. 03 to Jan 06 you had total control of the government. That means the wars are entirely your responsibility. We have had little or no power to affect the course and conduct of the war.
Now that you have lost them our goal is to contain the damage.
that will come is from the donks frolicing in MSM makeing themselves look high and mighty takeing on the "evil Bush" at the expense of our troops.
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
I'm sure it must have been awful sitting helplessly by, wringing their little hands at their total inability to in any way shape policy vis-a-vis Iraq.
Well, except for their direct, unfiltered, unedited access to the NY Times, WaPo, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and al-Jazeera. And well execpt for the fact that their side has used said outlets to scream QUAGMIRE! since before the war started, and ... (you know the rest)
No power, eh? Pity that people waste literally billions of dollars every month advertising in said media outlets - as they clearly have no way to influence opinion and move people.
What a pile of unadulterated horse poop.
But hey, how's that binding resolution calling for the date-certain withdrawl of all US military forces coming along, eh? Oh, not so well? Gee, must be tough having the power to actually do something. Pity.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
...Democrats *did* have plenty of power to affect the course of the war. They just chose the wrong side because embracing defeat was politically more expedient than contributing to victory.
--
"I will guarantee you that John Kerry will be president of the United States." - Nancy Pelosi
I would call for a cleanup, but it is somewhat obvious to me you do not actually understand how our government works. Perhaps a civic lesson instead?
- We are a Democratic Republic (not anarchy)
- Most votes take a super majority
- Who signed the AUMF on Iraq? Was it all Republicans (big hint here;no).
- Tell me, what wars did we lose?
Hopefully the clock is ticking.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
the very start of discussions about the current Iraq war, The Democrats: Sen Rockefeller on Fox News Sunday 13 Nov 05, with Chris Wallace stated "I flew to Syria in Jan 2002, and told them that Pres Bush intended to attack Iraq" Why, was he elected by the Syrians, did he owe the terrorists somehow?
I doubt it, he was just doing what Democrat party leaders do, try to defeat Pres Bush and regain power. No matter how many American military members have to die.
Every single day, we see statements from the Democrat leaders and just plain ordinary American leftist terrorist supporters to terrorists throughout the world assuring them that they will be safe once the Democrats get control of the situation.
The foreign terrorists will never defeat America.If America is defeated, it will be by the American left. Just as it was, during the Vietnam War.
than in mine. In my circles, DFL is a reference the person who finished Dead Last! With a modifier, of course! :-)
You mean like all those Democrats who voted FOR the Iraq War resolution?
"I had no control, no siree Bob, no control at all. Its all your war, I just voted for the d*mned thing"
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
Or should we just call him Blue?
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
between your post and pelosi's statement. In a democracy and during a war the morale and will of the population must always be considered. If Ho Chin Minh were alive he could verify this for you. It being a war it is safe to conclude that soldiers will be in harms way but to say as Grandma Pelosi did that Bush did what he did soley to head off Democratic party action is vulgar and stupid, hallmarks of Ms Pelosi.
You will have noticed that Pelosi quickly contradicts herself, you have already noticed that there is no steamroller in Congress to cut of or reduce spending despite much trumpery to that effect. In addition the debate over raising troop levels has been going on for months with democrats themselves in favor. You do remember the refrain," we didn't use enough troops".
If you add all this up you might just conclude that Bush didn't act to forestall a spending cut off but for other reasons. Regardless, Field Marshall Pelosi herself said she wouldn't do so and I daresay Bush knows it. Although why Pelosi would charge Bush with reacting to something Pelosi herself says won't happen is a question best left to cognitive scientists.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
they didn't use AP. AP has names for their sources, course they aren't the names that the sources were given at birth. More like the names AP made up for them. But don't question their patriotic motivation. It upsets the liberals.
But I am going to vote for funding. I like this cake, and I am going to eat it too.
As long as the MSM allows Democrats to sit on both sides of the fence- they will always be right.
This is the question that should have been asked right after the stark blunder comment:
Do you not have the courage of your convictions to stop this stark blunder in everyway possible, including halting any additional funding for troops? Why don't you just state that you will only vote for funding to bring the troops home in an orderly and safe manner?
__________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
"... on both sides of the fence."
It sounds like you think theirs is a hierarchical relationship rather than an equal partnership.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
Ms. Speaker, there's still time to hear those "constructive proposals we might have had." We'll just sit here and wait.
...can't it just be enough to say that "I have a better plan" or "I plan to develop a plan" without being asked to elaborate?
Obviously, every single Democrat would come up with a better plan for the security of our nation if they just weren't so darned busy crafting that critical minimum wage legislation.
--
"I will guarantee you that John Kerry will be president of the United States." - Nancy Pelosi
that the Constitution charges the Exceutive, not the Legislative, branch with the formulation and conduct of foreign policy and the conduct of war.
Ms. Pelosi and the other 534 members of the Congress should simply keep their mouths shut.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
precedent that micromanagement of wars by congress is and should be the done thing.
They can are in charge of declarations and funding.
They can tell the president they don't care for his actions, but they don't have the authority to meddle in the executive.
If they think the conduct is impeachable, then they should impeach.
Unfortunately, we will continue to get the worst of all possible worlds - they won't simply shut their mouths, neither will they present a plan. Just more opposition to the President's plan, without going on record what should be done, and what the consequences of failure would be.
Maybe I should be careful what I ask for when I say we await their constructive proposals, but to speak of "the constructive proposals we might have had..." (not had, but MIGHT have had) seems so transparent a bluff to me that I feel sure there were never any to be presented.
Might sound bad to you and me but, for her--when nearly half of all Democrats want us to fail of don't know what they want--the troops only value is their political use.
By saying Bush wants them to be killed, she is just providing ammo to her foot soldiers to seize a pretend moral high-ground.
"We care more about the troops than you because we don't want them to be killed."
Defensive outrage is the response she wants.
It is recklessly negligent for her to send someone's child to a death she is certain will happen. Her moral certainty lacks conviction.
I hate to say this, but I heard Limbaugh make a similar claim about Clinton (something to the effect that he set up the conditions in Somalia that lead to the the Blackhawk incident because the Libs hate all things military). That was pretty much the last straw for Rush as far as I was concerned.
Of course, everyone knows that Limbaugh is a blowhard, and at the end of the day he's just another disk jockey (albiet an overpaid one with a huge ego); I have the freedom to turn him off whenever he says something outrageously stupid (which is basically every time he talks about himself, which in turn is about 80% of his show).
Pelosi, on the other hand, is (in case you missed it) the Speaker of the House. I expected more from her, even if she IS the representative of the PRSF (Peoples Republic of San Francisco).
that you pointed out one of significant differences between Limbaugh and Pelosi; Limbaugh is not an elected member of the government of the United States.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
What happened was the military commanders in Somalia asked for armoured support, thru Les Aspin but with Clinton's knowledge, the request was rejected. What did the officers in the field know?
This led to a media "defeat", 19 Rangers dead & a minimum of 1,000 Somalis, arithmetic not being a strong suite of the media any more than morals.
Clinton got poor Aspin to take the rap, he resigned and died a year later. Don't know if Clinton made the funeral or not, and if he did was Monica in the back seat. I do know that in the Bosnia/Kosovo thing he did something of a reprise of Somalia when he ordered the aircraft not to descend below 15,000 ft. Caution & domestic PR being the passwords in both cases.
In a word, Rush was right about Somalia and BJ Billy. Blowhard or not Limbaugh led the way in a modest conservative news/commentary birth, or rebirth.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Anyone accusing the President of intentionally sending troops to thier deaths for political reason, or acting against the best interests of the US in a military conflict, should have something to back up such a statement other than halitosis and delusions of adequecy.
That's just as true for Mr. Franken as it is for Mr. Limbaugh, and it goes for PRESIDENT Clinton just as it does for PRESIDENT Bush.
You'll never see me arguing that Clinton's actions leading up to and following the Blackhawk incident were anything other than shameful, but I have to chalk that up to military stupidity and political cowardice, which is a far cry from treason.
The issue raised by Pelosi and mentioned in your first post had nothing to do with treason. In your 2nd post & response to me your first sentence contains two separate catagories, "intentionally sending troops", and "acting against the best interests"etc, again and as above, no treason.
Putting Pelosi aside the second catagory most certainly was applicable to Clinton for reasons spelled out in my first response to you. Therefore you may disregard the state of Limbaugh's breath and by innuendo my own. As to adequacy, let us be content to follow the last words in "Candide" and tend to our own gardens.
There is some apparent confusion on your part, note "acting against the best interests", then compare to your last post, "military stupidity and political cowardice", they do seem joined , don't they ?
Now to treason, an old and tiring subject, at least as far as Clinton is concerned. There are two uses of the word in political dialogue, one the constitutional definition which defines the process & brief but necessary grounds. The other the lexicographical usage. May I point out that on the second PRESIDENT Clinton {I capitalize on the assumption that you find this dramatic} can be considered to have engaged in activity that betrayed his country's interests and his office.
How so? The solicitation and receipt of foreign bribes from people representing said governments, a sidelight of which was the transfer of missle launch technology to China.
Having become tired of this, I would recommend you to a process of research, not excluding dusty newspaper morgues.
Again and for emphasis, Limbaugh was not wrong about Clinton.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
... that Ms. Pelosi is driven more by her blind hatred of Bush than anything else. she proves it over and over again.
RE: Political nature of the surge: I think what they are saying is basically that they see a window closing in terms of public support. That is, it's now or never. Yes, that's political, but not in the snarky way Pelosi implies.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
If that charge were true, it would be nothing we hadn't seen before. (c.f. Fallujah I and Fallujah II) Political interference in the military sphere has been one of the biggest problems.
That said, it seems obvious to me that Pelosi and Co are condemning anything the President does in public and rooting for him in private. From their perspective, the worst thing that could happen is for us to pull out of Iraq -- then they'd lose their biggest campaign issue for '08. (Never mind all the people dying.) It's better (for a politician) to be highly visible fighting for a cause the public likes than to actually win and have to move on.
From their perspective, the worst thing that could happen is for us to pull out of Iraq -- then they'd lose their biggest campaign issue for '08.
Nah - They'd just starting talking up how they were going to spend the "peace dividend" they'd won for us. Barf!!
"because the donks haven't lifted a finger to support the GWOT. That recent Fox poll suggests about half of them would be happy for us to lose, and I think that's a pretty accurate reflection of Congress as well. These are not only misguided Americans, these are bad Americans."
Wouldn't it be nice if attacked again, that only those who would like us to lose, would be the only ones killed.
If liberals want to fight terrorist their way, I wish that only THEY could pay the consequences. The same could be said of conservatives, if conservatives approach on GWOT is wrong, then they pay. Liberals and conservatives will NEVER agree on an approach to FIGHTING enemies, the problem is while we are circle jerking around with each other, the rest of the world takes advantage.
are paying the costs of the GWOT.
"if conservatives approach on GWOT is wrong, then they pay."
It would be nice IF only the politicians would pay the costs of their miscalculations
But it will always be the SOlDIERS!
soldiers defend our nation. I and every other volunteer, knew what the documents said when we signed them. The Americans that will pay the price, involuntarily, if we do not win the GWOT overseas, will be the American civilians caught in the crossfire in the American streets. If we do not win overseas, it will come to America. Everyday, the terrorists tell us they are going to destroy America. The messages from the Democrats and American leftists in Vietnam and Somalia, and the Iran Hostage affair, etc told the terrorists that America would never hold out for a long fight. Now the Democrats are intend on proving it. The GWOT will be won, the only questions, are will it be won in some faraway land or in America? Will the American leftists allow America to win, or will they help defeat America? Why do Democrats not believe the terrorists who say they are going to destroy America?
The bolshie wing of the MSM like NBC, CNN and CBS will stick with her for a while, but her approval rating is below Bush's and will surely descend as she continues to make a fool of herself.
Pelosi's approval rating is at 43%, while Bush's is at 41%. This rating is a significant upswing for Pelosi, and also significantly higher than Dennis Hastert's when he held the speakers gavel. Whether this state of affairs is due to positive media coverage, or general approval of the new legislative items past is, of course, open to debate.
-Just a democrat trying to follow both sides of the debate
pgaige
It's understandable that Nancy would think that the President timed the troop surge in order to twart his political opponents; after all, it's something the Democrats would do (and have done in the past; see Kosovo, Serejevo, Desert Fox, cruise missile attacks on al-Qaeda, etc).
Yes, it's despicable, but it just confirms what everyone already knows, that the Dems view everything through the prism of what will benefit them politically. They are so hungry to dominate and control, that everything else becomes incidential and secondary to that goal. They assume Bush is the same way, because people obsessed with power tend to project that obsession on others.
If I may be allowed a small (but appropriate) cliche, methinks the lady doth protest too much. :)