San Fran Nan will be surprised when she learns she must
placate the "anti-situation" crowd in her own party.
Posted on 11/10/2006 6:57:10 AM PST by Col. Bob
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.
See the video on Amy's URL:
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?
(Excerpt) Read more at amyproctor.squarespace.com ...
Immigration should have been played as a security issue, which it is. Forget the economics of it, it's a matter of controlling your borders post-9/11. The Dems were all about shovelling money at "homeland security" because the make-work/public-employee union aspects of it were something they instinctively understood. If GWB had listened to Tancredo, et. al. the Dems would have been in a real political bind on the border.
Nancee
i think the republican leadership has been exposed as having too much "establishment disease".
When people like Liddy Dole, who was in charge of the Senate GOP effort, see party affiliation as a matter of conenience with no difference between republican or conservative then they are not true leaders.
The same with GOP head Melman. I listening to him, I did not hear conviction, I saw excuses. People do not vote for excuses they vote for winning philosophies.
Consider this truer free market vote and a humerous aside. In the battle between PC-Guy and Mac-Guy, the Mac-Guy lost out to the conservative PC-Guy. Turns out Apple found that people wanted to beat the snot out of the Mac snob.
When leaders act like snobs, the masses will evict them.
Even the ancient Greeks knew this when they would vote any politician who was "too big for his britches" into exile for 10 years.
God help us all, yes!!
Nancee
"Someone remind me again why the Demwits won elections Tuesday."
IMHO:
The White House has failed to support and defend it's party, it's silence left the "guilty" tag hanging in the wake of manufactured scandal and smeers. The President has doen some great things, and he also abandoned his party on immigration. You can see it here, since the election returns - people are either cutting and running from the GOP, or pointing their fingers at everyone - a clear failure of leadership. Foley should never have happened, and it should have been addressed firmly, quickly, and in a way that encouraged NO debate. The White House was silent.
Lack of leadership in the houses. Sorry, but we've had how many years of control? What have we done? Sorry, missed opportunity is not a campaign plank.
Lack of any control over the media. Even Fox is off the plantation.
Weak candidates. Sorry, but it's true. We do not have the best and brightest running anymore - those people are too scared to run for office, because the Dems and the media will rip them apart and make their private lives public, and there's little help from the party or the leadership. We have weak, inneffectual candidates. There's some bright lights out there, but a lot of them simply aren't fit for office, are RINO's, or Foley's waiting to happen.
No platform. Even as a conservative, I'm hard put to really lay out what the platform is, especially when it comes to immigration, or policy on matters like Isreal. The White House and the Congress have failed to lay out the agenda, let alone work towards it. There's no path, it's just random meandering and reaction to distractions.
Can it all be changed? Yes. But the damage that the other side can do in two short years could be enough that even if we do get another Republican President, or get control of either house, we'll be cleaning up after Pelosi and her gang for the foreseeable future. Sure, her bumbling and idiocy and frothing at the mouth liberalism makes conservatives look good for the next race, but damn it, she's IN CONTROL now. That's simply unnacceptable, but now our reality.
I'm trying really hard not to cut and run on the GOP. I still beleive in the core ideas and beliefs, but I'm having a hard time seeing any leadership in it, and tired of watching those who i believe uphold those things get defeated by nitwit Democrats spewing utter nonsense. There needs to be a wholesale cleaning of house in teh party - the elections are just the beginning. From top to bottom the weak must be weeded out, the strong encouraged and supported, and a constant, unified front created to stave off the idiots in the Democratic party.
Again, IMHO. I'm not sure what the hell do to, either, but it's time to call it as it is - the leadership of the GOP failed it's party, big time. They can keep me, long term, if certain things happen, but I'm not even hearing hints of any of it. We have a LOT of work to do to make up for this loss, but under the current leadership...I'm hard pressed to get any motivation.
That's my honest assessment.
It is going to be a LONG, LONG two years before we regain power in 2008!
There is no chance that the resources necessary to accomplish the mission are going to be provided.
Hopefully the President will see to it that our forces are sheltered to the greatest extent possible as they are withdrawn, but I think even that isn't clear.
"The White House has failed to support and defend it's party, it's silence left the "guilty" tag hanging in the wake of manufactured scandal and smeers."
..and failed to defend itself as well.
Bringing the troops home is the one thing Bush can do without any support from anyone. Bush should face the country today and say I will bring all troops home immediately if a date certain for surrender is set.
Pelosi needs to look up the definition of *winning* in a college dicitonary...Cut and Run Dems..That is the Dim. solution to the current *situation*.
Interesting map, but I would have left in the Kurdish areas of Iraq and Iran.
This kind of thing is why the Democrats kept Pelosi locked up in an attic somewhere the final two weeks before the election.
Thanks, voters. We now have the first doorknob to be elevated to the position of Speaker of the House.
I hope the Repubs have the testicular fortitude to expose all the idiotic statements from this wacko witch and the other Dems in Congress - and fight them tooth and nail.
MOLON LABE!!!!!!
The map was made before we were pretending any of them where were friendlies.
"The White House has failed to support and defend it's party, it's silence left the "guilty" tag hanging in the wake of manufactured scandal and smeers."
..and failed to defend itself as well."
Indeed.
I'm tired of conservatives being seen as weak, and the "nice guy". We brought chocolates and candy to a gutter knife fight, and got our asses handed to us.
And then, to pour more salt in the wound, just as we're hearing the scope of our ass beating, Tony Snow gets out there and says "Hey, okay, we got creamed, but it's okay, because now we can pass the legislation that lost us our base in teh first place!"
My head is STILL reeling that he did that. It was and is complete and utter abandonment of the party, the base, and conservatives everywhere, on a crucial issue, and I've YET to hear the White House explain to us in terms that make any sense that "Reform" (ie. amnesty) will be beneficial to anyone except restaurant owners and contractors and businesses that hire illegals.
When the White House and the GOP start defending principles that benefit the common good as the cost of personal gain, and not principles that prop up business with illegal practices, then maybe I'll start think about hanging around.
It's about principles.
A winnable war implies that you have a stand up enemy that you can completely defeat.
"Feat arms"? New one on me.
So, what sort of arms will it take?
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.