Pictured, Pelosi displaying her courage as she speaks in supports of murdering the defenseless under the name of choice.
Later, she will also be calling the U.S. military "baby killers".
Posted on 05/30/2004 9:17:46 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Sunday that it took "great courage" for her to bash President Bush two weeks ago as "an incompetent leader . . . who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon" - explaining that she leveled the incendiary criticism to help U.S. troops in Iraq.
"I made the statement that I did - and I think with great courage, if I might say about myself - because I am worried about the troops on the ground in Iraq," Pelosi told "Meet the Press."
"Believe me, I said this for the troops. I said this for the troops. [It was] a cry for help for the troops," she insisted.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I'm sure the only thing Pelosi is worried about is retaking the White House and Congress. She's too self-centered to think about anybody but herself.
Pictured, Pelosi displaying her courage as she speaks in supports of murdering the defenseless under the name of choice.
Later, she will also be calling the U.S. military "baby killers".
WELLLL....the liberals have REALLY dumbed down society to the point where THEY THINK whatever THEY do is COURAGEOUS....(ROFL....idiots!) KEEP TALKIN' NANCY!!!
My eyes usually tear up when I barf. Can that count for crying?
She was taught well by Kerry.
"It's takes great courage--great courage--to wake up every day and face what I see in the mirror."
Yeah, but has even Kerry actually come out and said, "I showed great courage in Vietnam"? I know that's the implication, but it's not the same thing as just blurting it out the way Pelosi did.
A woman resorting to tears to get their way, gain sympathy, or get out of saying or doing something stupid, is the highest form of blackmail possible. It's a cheap trick. signed, a woman.
Trained actors and actresses can master this and do it voluntarily, and a few suffer from an idiopathic proptosis or a proptosis secondary to hyperthyroidism. Of course, a few people just have this as a normal finding.
I suspect she is aware of her problem since she looks down and away repeatedly and especially when under pressure.
Playing the victim while being a b--ch.
There are still enough patriotic and freedom-loving people in this country that see right through the sedition and treason of her likes and the likes of the Kenndey's, Deans, and Gores of their party. Even more moderate democrats are shaking their heads in either shame or disgust at what these people are saying and doing in time of war. In fact, that's why they don't get the bumps one might expect them to. With things going 'badly' from a Hollywood perspective, one need only remember that the tiny island of Iwo Jima cost America over 20,000 casualties in almost as many days.
These people like Pelosi are showing their true colors (red, with no white or blue). They only lust for power, and should never again hold the mantle of majority status. In short, they cannot be trusted with our nation's security. And that should become apparent the day after the 2004 Election.
And, by the way, if this was Communist Russia, by now none of us would've heard your little "I have courage" speech; you'd be chillin' in the Gulag by now.
BlackNET: Support the Troops, Mr. Murtha
Written by NavySEALs.com/BlackNET
Tuesday May 11, 2004
By Peter Huessy
NavySEALs.com/BlackNET
WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 10) - At a recent speech at the Center for Security and International Affairs, a respected Marine, 16- term United States Representative John P. Murtha, said the war, as being fought in Iraq cannot be won. Much of the subsequent media comment has focused on the unwinnable part of his remarks and ignored his call for a change in strategy, including, more troops.
But was this helpful, Congressman, did it "support the troops"?
For example, over the past two years we have heard almost every day how the Democrats support our troops. They often don't support the President, the commander in chief, and they often don't support the policy of regime change in Iraq, but, oh, they support the troops. This claim is even made with a straight face when they vote against the very resources needed by our troops in the field fighting not only for our liberty but the freedom of others.
For the past two years, members of the Democratic Party, with the notable exception of some like Senator Lieberman and yourself, have heavily and consistently criticized the conduct of the war against Islamic totalitarianism. They have done so without concern for the impact it has had on our troops and their morale and their ability to fight the very war these critics are always telling us they support, but just not in the way it's being fought! They all have only two suggestions. Put more soldiers on the ground and bring in the United Nations. This is done when simultaneously they complain about the cost of the war and ignore the fraud and corruption of the decade long food for palaces program run by the very same UN they hold so high.
Wow! What a strategy our soldiers on the ground must be saying!
Congressman Kasich says we are committing genocide. Is this “supporting the troops”? Governor Dean says the President knew beforehand about 9/11. Was this a strategy of “supporting the troops?” We ended the brutal careers of Saddam’s two sons and Congressman Rangel claims we didn’t give them a fair trial. Again, is this part of “supporting the troops” as we dishonor their courage and resolve in finding these two goons?
I can't help but wonder why on Kosovo, for example, we are still there after a decade of effort, but we never here the refrain, "more boots on the ground". In Haiti, we send $3-5 billion in assistance, send military forces along with other allies, and brought in the UN. Aristide is now gone, political murders reached levels not seen since the rule of the Duvalier family, all while the corruption turned Haiti into the second largest transshipment point for illegal narcotics into the United States. And never did I hear the need for "more boots on the ground".
But now what do we hear on Iraq and Afghanistan? Has the Democratic Party over the past year supported our troops on the ground? Did their rhetoric and criticism help? Did it discourage our enemies and boost our friends? Let's see Congressman Murtha. When Senator Kennedy claimed the war was made up in Texas, did you step up and say such talk undermined the morale of our troops, poised in the summer of 2002 to go to Iraq? Was this part of a heretofore undisclosed but secret "winnable strategy"?
When Senator Daschle demanded that we have a debate on whether or not we should effect regime change in Iraq in the fall of 2002, did we not have the debate? When Senator Byrd said then we should wait until after the elections and have a vote only then about whether we should go to war against Iraq, did we not have a vote? Did your party's leadership say how important it was that their elected representatives have the guts to vote one way or the other, and do so before the election? And having voted under our constitutional processes to fight this war, why did not your party fully support the effort and thus "support the troops"?
When the vote was in favor of liberating Iraq, did you caution your colleagues who complained they were forced and rushed into a vote? Did you question the effect such statements had on our troops?
Did you worry about the ability of Saddam to move or hide his weapons if your colleagues continued their demands that we wait, and wait, and wait?
Did you object when your democratic colleagues said the war was only about oil? Did you say this is not what our troops are fighting for? Did you note how horrible it was to impugn the courage and bravery of our soldiers by saying they were so stupid they were only fighting for oil? And not liberty? And not freedom?
Did you object when your Democratic colleagues said the war was manufactured simply to change the political debate prior to the 2002 elections? Did you warn of the impact it would have on the morale of our troops when their sacrifice and their courage was so demeaned?
When Governor Dean and others said Saddam was not a threat, did you take them to task and urge them to seriously look at the evidence?
And have you since told your colleagues that the chemical weapons found in Jordan are apparently from Iraq and that the captured terrorists were trained in Iraq by Saddam BEFORE Iraq’s liberation?
Did you warn of the problems of telling our troops to go to war against Saddam and then hear the refrain from your fellow Democrats that there as no reason to go to war because there were no weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam was not a threat, that it was all about oil? Did you not think our adversaries were not listening? Did you not think there was something terribly wrong when the hateful editorials written in Damascus and Tehran and from the caves of Afghanistan echoed the words of your Democratic colleagues?
Did you remind your colleagues, including former secretaries Cohen and Albright, and Senator Kerry, and Senator Biden, and Senator Clinton and yes, President Clinton, and all the others who said in 1998 and 1999 and 2000, in 2001 and 2002 and 2003, that Saddam was a threat? That he had weapons of mass destruction? Where was their plan? Was the Clinton administration plan "winnable" or were we simply launching an occasional missile strike that, in the wonderful words of our President "hit a bunch of camels in the butt"? Was striking empty buildings in Baghdad late at night a "winnable" plan?
When your party waxed hysterical at the "looting" of Baghdad museums and sneered at the performance of our troops, did you caution that this criticism gave aid and comfort to the enemy? Did you ask your colleagues to apologize to our troops when we found that most of the antiquities had not been robbed from the museums but taken into private homes for safekeeping? Did you send our troops to Iraq-which you voted to do-because you wanted them to guard museums and make the antiquities dealers in America's arts industry feel good about themselves? Or did we send them to Iraq to liberate 25 million people, which they did?
When your colleagues failed to inform the American people that Saddam had let 500,000 people out of his prisons before the war, did you tell the American people that the bandits and car bombers in Iraq were not fighting for their country but they were maintaining their criminal life as they had before? That they were not insurgents, or militants but common low-life thugs?
When your colleagues like Senator Daschle and Senator Kennedy and Congressman McDermott sneered that we had not captured Saddam, did you remind them that it was our soldiers that we trying to do that job and the criticism was undermining their morale? And when we captured Saddam, did you ask your colleagues why they suddenly changed their minds and said it didn't matter, that it was no big deal, or that we had him on ice anyway?
Did you chastise your Democratic colleagues as they ridiculed the capture of Saddam saying it was no big deal, knowing that they were undermining the morale of the very courageous soldiers that found the former Iraqi tyrant and brought him to justice? Did you warn that the incessant criticism of the US and coalition military was undermining the morale of our troops? Or was this part of your party's "winnable strategy"?
What did you say when Congressman Marshall, your Democratic party colleague, wrote in the Atlanta Constitution that the incessant whining and criticism from your party and your friends in the media was getting Americans and Iraqis and coalition soldiers and workers killed? Congressman Marshall, who is a Vietnam veteran, and a member of the House Armed Services Committee. Where was the voice of your party's leadership? Or do you think remaining silent was part of your party's "winnable" strategy?
When Howard Dean was saying withdraw, where was your voice warning about the horrible effect it was having on our soldiers' morale? When Senator Kerry was saying how important it was to bring in the United Nations where was your voice to warn about bringing the corruptors of the UN, the bribe-takers and the tyranny supporters, back into Iraq? What did that say to the American and coalition soldiers who were risking their lives to get rid of the bribe-takers and the corruptors and the false supporters of freedom at the UN? Where was your support of "our troops"? Where was your party's support of "our troops" then?
America has for the past 15 years liberated the Moslems of Kosovo; we have helped feed the starving Moslems of Somalia. We have liberated the 25 million Moslems of Afghanistan and the Taliban is no more. But of course your Democratic colleagues who supported giving foreign aid to the Taliban for nearly 48 months during the Clinton administration now criticize the Bush administration for not having given Afghanistan a modern democracy in 24 months.
Was that foreign aid part of a "winnable" strategy? How does that sit with our soldiers in Kabul or near the Pakistani border? Does letting your party become a mouthpiece for retreat and appeasement help our troops? Is this how we fight the war against terrorism? Is this a "winnable strategy"?
Many in your party do not believe we are at war. They believe terrorism is a matter for law enforcement, just as Senator Kerry and others still assert. They say there is no connection between terrorism and Iraq.
Is it a winnable strategy to adopt as policy a platform that says only once we are attacked can we then arrest the bad guys? We did this after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, did we not? And did it stop the terrorist attacks?
Remember in 1995, the Murrah building was bombed? Richard Clarke now says Ramzi Yousef helped Nichols and McVeigh design the bomb that destroyed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. And Senator Bob Kerry of the 9/11 Commission says Yousef was a "paid Iraqi intelligence agent". And this is the same Ramzi Yousef that is now in jail, convicted of his role in the 1993 World Trade Center attacks. And yet there are many in your party that say Iraq has no ties to terrorism.
How does that help our soldiers on the ground fighting to end Saddam's regime? Is NOT connecting the dots the new “winnable strategy” being pursued by your party?
After the ‘93 World Trade Center bombing, we had the Murrah building bombing. And then the barracks in Saudi Arabia were bombed. And then our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. And then the USS Cole.
And were we winning the war against terrorism then, Mr. Murtha?
After attack after attack, we were winning?
Where was your voice then? Or the voice of your party?
Out of a military of 1.7 million, fewer than a dozen soldiers violated the very tenets of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions in abusing Iraqi prisoners, many who were thugs and murderers who often attacked each other or their watchers. That's one out of every 150,000 or more American soldiers. Where is your outrage at the calumny now heaped on our troops by the American media, and by your colleagues in your party who say it goes all the way up the chain of command? Where is your outrage that Senator Clinton and Senator Kerry now claim that every soldier in the chain of command, including our President and Secretary of Defense, is now a criminal?
Have we returned to 1971, when Senator Kerry and his friends called every American soldier in Vietnam, including implicitly your self, a war criminal? And yet you all say you "support the troops". To support the troops, we have two choices. And there are only two, Mr. Murtha. We win this war or we get out. We have no other choice than to win. And that means, yes, that means, supporting our troops, including our commander in chief.
I think your colleague, Congressman Bill Young, has put it very well: “A world controlled by terrorists is not acceptable. If the United States cannot defeat terrorism, who in the world can? We will…support our troops in the field. They need the funds and resources to wage this war but they also need our undeniable support.”
Some have asked how American can continue to be a beacon of liberty to the world in the face of the gruesome pictures from Iraq’s prisons. It is simple. We remember our history, that the US military, today, yesterday and no doubt tomorrow, has, is and will liberate more millions, from tyranny, totalitarianism, from despotism, from want and neglect. That is what America is all about.
Not too long ago, the Christian Science Monitor told the story of US servicemen who evacuated an Iraqi woman, Farha Abed Saad, for medical treatment after she had been harmed by the thugs who wished to rob Iraqis of their right to freedom. "Thank God, you have come here to Iraq and make us free," said Ms. Saad, kissing a soldier's hands. "When I see you, I see my own sons! Thank you, thank you." To American and allied soldiers around the world today, I say also, “Thank you.”
Peter Huessy is president of GeoStrategic Analysis and senior defense associate at the National Defense University Foundation. The views expressed above are his alone.
http://www.navyseals.com/community/articles/article.cfm?id=3530
I saw this...I could only take about 5 minutes of it I had to trun to the store and get gas.LOL!
> How did this woman ever get elected to anything?
two words : marin county, which quite appropriately gave
us the american taliban.
These dems are cracking up right in front of us. First Gore .. and now Pelosi .. WOW!
I'm stunned by her statements - "I said this for the troops. [It was] a cry for help for the troops" .. WHAT ..??
HAS ANYBODY HEARD ANY "CRY FOR HELP" FROM THE TROOPS ..??
The only people crying for help are the democrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.