Mission Accomplished
By haystack Posted in War — Comments (37) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In a "bold move" to show us what REAL leadership looks like, America's Mother-In-Law™ "defies Bush to meet Syrian President."
Much has been said here already in recent days about her righteous indignation against her President - yes HER President - but I wonder how many of us are paying attention to the cumulative effect her actions, and those of Feinstein, Kerry, and the rest of the nutjobs on the left is having on America's interests.
More below the fold...
Because, in the eyes of our enemies, they are winning and every new and more bold move closer toward capitulation only further serves to encourage them to keep up the fight.
Pelosi's latest olive branch has all the appearances of an honest attempt at dialog:
Syria’s state-run al-Thawra claims a small victory in Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Damascus today, welcoming the visit as a change of tone, while at the same time lowering expectations for what the visit will mean in the greater picture.
“Al-Sayyida Nancy Pelosi is in Damacsus, not concerned about the protestations of the neoconservatives,” al-Thawra writes, using a common honorific title for the Speaker.
Pelosi seeks to “correct United States foreign policy,” the paper continues, describing previous US policy in the region as a series of failures that have destroyed America’s moral standing, a policy that “knows no policy except war, siege, extortion of its friends, and the development of the enemy camp.”
Ahh, there's that dreaded "neoconservative" pointy stick again.
And she is setting about to "correct our foreign policy" while on vacation and at OUR expense as she violates every morsel of protocol and undermines the job of Secretary of State.
All at once Nancy has given us the picture of our children's future; one in which the Dhimmification of America in the name of peaceful coexistence will have our daughter's wearing headscarves in deference to Islam, and at the same time asserting there is really no such thing as terrorism after all:
“Pelosi’s visit irritates not only the neoconservatives,” but cuts against the whole policy of confrontation with Syria, and of “putting it on lists of accusations such as support for terrorism (meaning the Palestinian resistance and Hizbullah) and of facilitating the flow of arms to Iraq across the borders, and of undermining the political stability of Lebanon.”
“If Pelosi’s visit is not a denial” of these accusations, it is at least an admission that “dialogue with Syria is necessary and vital, even with the presence of differences and “accusations.”
What was I THINKING? This isn't terrorism we're fighting, it's a Palestinian resistance!
As Nance lays the palm leaves of peace at the feet of our enemy abroad, her minions here at home are re-framing the very terminology of this fight:
Committee aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said dropping or reducing references to the global war on terror could have many purposes, including an effort to be more precise about military operations, but also has a political element involving a disagreement over whether the war in Iraq is part of the effort to combat terrorism or is actually a distraction from fighting terrorists.
[...]
“This is a philosophical and political question,” said a Republican aide. “Republicans generally believe that by fighting the war on terror in Iraq, we are preventing terrorists from spreading elsewhere and are keeping them engaged so they are not attacking us at home.”
[...]
“You have to wonder if this means that we have to rename the GWOT,” said a Republican aide, referring to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medals established in 2003 for service members involved, directly and indirectly, in military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.“If you are a reader of the Harry Potter books, you might describe this as the war that must not be named,” said another Republican aide. That is a reference to the fact that the villain in the Harry Potter series, Lord Voldemort, is often referred to as “he who must not be named” because of fears of his dark wizardry.
Having won the fight in Congress to build a calculated consensus on an arbitrary withdrawal timetable, knowing full well it will likely be vetoed, the Democrats aren't finished by any means. In fact, they are just getting started.
First, there's Reid's threat/promise to move on to direct de-funding:
Reid says he will join forces with Senator Russ Feingold, one of the Democrats' most liberal members who has long called to end the war by denying funding for it. Reid and others have previously been reluctant to propose cutting funding out of fear it would leave troops in the lurch.
Reid now says he is willing to take the tougher tack considering Bush's refusal to begin pulling out troops.
And, there's his moronic stance on supporting the troops:
Sen. Harry Reid used the dedication of a new Nevada National Guard armory Tuesday to declare the Iraq war "a failure" but insist that U.S. troops and National Guard members fighting the conflict deserve public support.
[...]
"Let me make it very clear," Reid told reporters outside the new armory in a fast-developing area just south of the Las Vegas Strip. "We are not going to allow the president to continue a failed policy in Iraq. We represent the American people's vision on this failed war."
[...]
"The president is misrepresenting the facts as he has from the beginning when he misled us into war," Reid said. "The war has been a failure. We have to bring our troops home."But Reid insisted Tuesday that Congress will not leave troops unprotected.
"We have said time and time again the troops will have everything they need," Reid said, adding that it was time for Iraqis to assume the responsibility and cost of defending their country.
Add to this Feinstein's statements just a few days ago:
A president has to lead, but people have to follow. And right now, people are not following this president, in the United States. The people have spoken through the Congress.
and her plan to meet with the Iranians, ALL while Nancy is out in front leading the charge in her headscarf, and you have a tidy little scheme to do whatever it takes to renounce the war on terror, withdraw troops from every quarter, and walk away from the Middle East all together.
Good times...good times.
Perhaps this will work out well for them in the polls, perhaps not. Either way, if this keeps up, we're in for a very long painful road that leads to a very bad place.
Personally, if I lived in her district, I'd be working toward a petition to recall her election. It has been done before in California - if ever there was a case for incompetence in an elected office it is this piece of work sitting in the Speaker's Chair.
Just like in the famous picture of the President and the "Mission Accomplished" banner, so too is Nancy's pose in her bonny new headscarf an early indicator of an accomplishment they don't fully yet appreciate as one they asked for but not one they wanted.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | At Last: Honesty — Comments (3) »
Mission Accomplished 37 Comments (0 topical, 37 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
You would probably be trying to slit your wrists by now. In her district, she's a moderate.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
A Green Party candidate, Terry Baum, received 6,000 write-in votes running against Pelosi. Her platform? Nancy Pelosi is a right-wing extremist whose support of the war and the Patriot Act is out of touch with her more "enlightened" constituents.
--
"We can all do our part to save the planet by dying." - R.E. Finch
...saying from Nevada - while on a Nat'l Guard base - that this is a "failed war" we were "misled" into.
But he doesn't have the b*lls to actually pull out the troops now; instead, he's sacrificing their lives day after day for a "failed cause."
How about a little intellectual honesty here? If it's a failure, bring them home now. If it's not - and thus, by not bringing them home immediately you're not intentionally sacrificing lives for a lost cause - then SHUT THE H*LL UP ALREADY AND GIVE THE TROOPS WHAT THEY NEED TO FIGHT AND WIN THE WAR.
Jeez.
'bring them home now?'
It's my understanding that they don't have enough votes to override the veto the president will undoubtedly hand out. How exactly will they end the war immediately given the current political situation?
....which states that as their goal - in other words, rather than being duplicitous and saying one thing while doing another, they can actually put their money where their collective mouth is.
But that's too scary. Saying something over and over and actually acting on it are two completely different things.
Put in the particulars, yes, you are technically correct. Sen. Reid cannot end the war and bring the troops home today.
what's better: to make a political statement, or to take action which has at least some chance of success?
The nuts on the extreme left can complain about Reid all they want, but things really couldn't be going better for him if they had planned it themselves. On Nov. 8th, it was pretty clear that this year was going to be one of battles between the Congress and the Administration, and taking a long view has a far greater chance of success than the short view.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/democrats/the_veil_of_nancy_...
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
So is this
and this
Let's face it, in certain situations in the Middle East, a woman needs to wear a headscarf - just like in certain situations a man might want to wear body armor. I see the broader point about Pelosi undermining the President's foreign policy position, but the scarf thing is a non-issue.
I guess this was discussed pretty thoroughly in an earlier post. I guess it is a waste of space to put it here.
I still hate to see conservatives get so touchy about things like this. We have great real-world ideas that are grounded in a long proud philosophical tradition. We don't need to play the liberal game of perpetual outrage and image posturing.
...(neither of which were to a Syria, btw) endorsed by the US, or...was she going as a renegade supplicant going into the dens of terrorim supporters, against the will of the person who sets foreign policy for this nation, to show how weak and divided she wants Aemerica to be?
Oh wait...that's Pelosi, who's the subject of this diary for that reason, and really no other.
...the Syrian government in 2003 by voting Aye to this. Her statement is - for the moment - here. But, hey, what's one's word when you can throw political darts at the President?
I don't know what would be worse about some of this woman's defenders: that they don't squirm inside at the thought of defending her, or that they do - but defend her anyway.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I am not defending her for going to the mosque. I am only defending her for wearing a veil inside the mosque, since she was there anyway. And yes, I do squirm at defending her, but I try to take principled positions anyway, even when they hurt a friend or help an enemy. Some people would call that integrity. I am not saying that mine is the ONLY principled position, but I call it as I see it and I think the whole veil brouhaha is foolish. I'm also not the only RedState reader to think so.
1) The issue of this diary is the trip, not the veil
2) The trip was irresponsible
Right? If so, I agree with point #1, as you can see in my apology above. I thought that one mea culpa would be enough, but theres another one for you. For the record, I also agree with point #2, that she should not have gone in the first place.
We seem to agree on everything except for the veil which, as you point out, is not the topic of this thread. If you want to debate me on that issue, please explain to me on the other thread why presidential authorization has any bearing whatsoever on what headgear she is allowed to wear? If she wore a veil while traveling with a State Department delegation would it be ok? If she ignored the President's foreign policy and went on her own but didn't wear a scarf would that make it better?
Let's stick to the substantive issue, the trip itself. The scarf stuff makes us all look silly.
Pelosi is visiting a state sponsor of terror.
And, BTW, did the Tajik papers hail Condi's visit as a sign that the American people were turning against the President? (See the excerpt from Syrian media above).
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
1. The Israelis are GLAD she's there.
[Translation: the deputy head of state - not the government said nice things about her.]
2. The Israelis are using her as a go-between from Israel to Syria.
[At least, so say anonymous sources.]
3. There are three Republican Congressmen in Syria meeting with Assad RIGHT NOW.
[Sparky, this is why you're getting tossed. Fly by all you like, but you're hardly the first person to bring this up in defense of your pet oathbreaker. Maybe negative reinforcement will teach some of you how to read.]
[See annotation to 2.]
These facts should be taken into consideration in all future commentary on this issue.
[Otherwise people will come to this meaningless, impotent site and repeat said 'facts', over and over and over again. - Moe Lane]
[*Annotated]
Okay, I give up. Why are any of those relevant to what is going on?
The White House says she shouldn't be there is what is important. You'll note how this differs from your points 3 and 4.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
this "The three Republican Congressmen, including Joe Pitts (R-PA) are in Syria "in cooperation with the administration."
is not entirely true. They are not working in cooperation with the administration.
Pitts is my Rep. and I hope to find out more about this from his office. It seems that Pitts/Wolf/Aderholt and Pelosi should re-read the Constitution.
just pass a resolution declaring victory. We've won, so we can all go home now. Kind of a "Peace with Honor" thing.
Nancy is right where she should be. Our commander-in-chief has shown himself inept in all matters pertaining to policy foreign and domestic, economic, military, linguistic. He's a profound disappointment to his country and to the world in which his country exists (it's important to remind you folks that America is part of a bigger world, ergo that last clause...). His unimaginative rigidity has cost us our standing in the world.
Nancy, on the other hand, not beholden to the conservative think tanks which have provided Mr. Bush with his three or four ideas, is willing to speak to others in order to resolve conflicts with them. Any parent, any teacher, any thoughtful human being will tell you that this is an ABSOLUTE PREREQUISITE for resolving conflicts. You can't imagine how refreshing and liberating it is to reasonable people across America to hear about this woman's visit to Syria.
I know such a remark is completely out of place here. I see it as a raindrop in the desert. What use are you to each other if you're just sharpening each other's greviences, rehearsing old resentments, etc.? Look at it as an open window, through which sunlight streams over the faces of trolls.
But she is beholden to the anti-American left. So that's fine.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
after you slit your wrists and drop them in a warm bathtub, right?
That IS somewhat equivalent to your enlightened and soothing tones of platitude and condescension, no?
Nancy was elected to the House of Representatives, not the Oval office. Neither was she appointed Secretary of State. She may believe she holds these offices, or could perform them better than those currently in those positions, but nonetheless, her adventures in the Middle East are not within her job descriptions...savvy?
As you bask in the streams of sunlight that wash over you when the terrorists return to our soil please reflect then on your thoughts here when, in horror, you ask incredulously "why us?" We have given you everything you asked for in exchange for peace!?!?
It sure is fun to keep after these Bush pointy sticks of his being inarticulate, or inept, but the grown ups have enemies that want to kill us, and we are rather busy killing them before they kill you...if we were to fail, the bad guys might prevent you from spouting off these insightful little tidbits of genius and superior thinking, and we just can't have that now can we?
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
In your dreams maybe. Truth is, in the Middle East strength is seen through guns, not talk.
Pelosi acting like the Secretary of State did far more damage to our nation than you would ever know. Then again, it is the same theme played out ever since Bush got into office - that Democrats really were the ones ruling the roost.
The unfortunate side effect is that terrorist will not only know we are weak, but will continue to exploit that weakness until Isreal is gone and or American society is under Islamic law (or both).
Before you think thats hyperbolic talk, I suggest you research the term islamic caliphate and al qeada - or read any of the Iranian President's speaches. Did I mention that the same dude Pelosi visited today had the President of Lebanon assassinated because he wanted to break free of their rule?
...gee, see any discrepancy here between what Olmert told Pelosi and what Pelosi told Assad?
From Reuters:
"'(Our) meeting with the president enabled us to communicate a message from prime minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well,' Pelosi told reporters after talks with Assad."
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007...
From "The Jerusalem Post"
"The officials said Olmert had told Pelosi that he thought her trip to Damascus was a mistake, and that when she asked - nevertheless - whether he had a message for Assad, Olmert said Syria should first stop supporting terrorism and "act like a normal country," and only then would Israel be willing to hold discussions."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879247562&pagename=JPost%...
--
"We can all do our part to save the planet by dying." - R.E. Finch
to resolve conflict. Worked great for Chamberlin with Hitler. Will work just as good with Assad and Ahmadinejad. Same philosophy, different faces. Why do we keep having to relearn the lesson that you can't negotiate with evil, you have to kill it.?
Talking to terrorists, who would have thunk it! Be careful though, sunlight can kill some of us bottom dwellers.
_________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
and peace be to Allah that she stays:)
Peace through superior fire power:)
foreign diplomacy is precisely why we can't have amateurs flying around the world screwing things up. A pro like Sec. Rice makes sure every syllable is correct when reporting to the press. Nancy spins the talks she had with Israel into what she wants to say not what Israel said. Nan the MSM carries your water here at home but it's a different ball game on the International stage. Pelosi, leave it to the pros, come home set down and shut up. You have embarrassed yourself and your Country.
I hope that every observant Jew ( conservatives) sees this after Pesach and understands: you are supporting this mishigas.
Do you people understand that many Jewish people who support your agenda and politicians also adhere to this dress code?
...on this Apollo 13 of a diplomatic mission. Seems everybody is upset with her for some reason or another:
http://www.reformsyria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282...
h/t LGF
...the fate of turncoat General Benedict Arnold if the forces of the fledgling United States had managed to lay hands on him?
Time to measure rope.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Recall in California is limited to state officials. The Constitution does not allow for the recall of a federal official - just as it does not allow for state-imposed term limits on US Representatives and Senators.