Skip to comments.
Pelosi Says Iraq Is Not "a War To Win"
Bottom Line Up Front ^
| 11/09/06
| Amy Procttor
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 isnt a war to win, its 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 ...
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iraq; pelosi; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-171 last
To: lentulusgracchus
Anyone have another story?My theory was just an assumption. Yours is worse, yet!
161
posted on
11/10/2006 3:41:00 PM PST
by
bannie
To: indylindy
Blow it out your "leftist ear"
Oh wow. That is an intelligent reponse. [snicker].
Do you need as aspirin for all of the difficult thinking to come up with that one?
162
posted on
11/10/2006 3:55:23 PM PST
by
TomGuy
To: TomGuy
Actually, you do not deserve a response.
163
posted on
11/10/2006 4:01:13 PM PST
by
dforest
(be careful you don't become what you hate the most)
164
posted on
11/10/2006 4:03:12 PM PST
by
GretchenM
(What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Please meet my friend, Jesus)
To: TomGuy
Yo Tom notice his sign on date???
165
posted on
11/10/2006 4:03:18 PM PST
by
mware
(By all that you hold dear... on this good earth... I bid you stand! Men of the West!)
To: Col. Bob
"This isn't a war to win"? This is the next SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES? We're doomed. We ARE doomed. I can't believe she would say such a stupid thing. She's putting our troops in danger. She's such a moron. That woman hasn't got brains enough to be Speaker of the House.
To: americafirst
"And we LOST TO THESE IDIOTS?"
No denying that, but idiots will be idiots. The election won't change that and make them suddenly wise. Idiots are dangerous, especially to themselves and they will implode as idiots often do. Hopefully they will self destruct before they have dragged America down with them.
To: dfwgator
"Reagan was an exception, it was his passion and that's what drove him. You just don't see that kind of passion about conservatism from today's Republican politicians."
When Reagan died, there was a national outpouring of respect and deep admiration. The recation to this event was totally lost on today's Republican politicians.
To: jsmaineconservative
Yes, I hope you're right. Already, the Dems are backing off from the lunatic left fringe and in effect, ignoring their base, lol. Impeachment is off the table. I wonder how many voted with impeachment for Bush in mind when they pulled the lever. The thing is, IMHO, the majority who voted in the Dems were reacting against the Iraq war, not for something that the Dems could give them, except maybe some measure of revenge against Bush and the Republicans, which they are slowly finding out is a pipe dream (no pun intended), lol.
A lot of the Dems who won campaigned as conservatives on social issues, but of course, the MSM is ignoring this very important fact. These new socially conservative (blue-dog) Dems could very well work with the GOP and yes, this will infuriate the left. It remains to be seen how this all will play out.
169
posted on
11/10/2006 7:03:13 PM PST
by
khnyny
(God Bless the Republic for which it stands)
To: sonic109
[The " feminizing " of America continues.]
It doesn't surprise me, as the testosterone levels for American men have fallen drastically (I'm not making this up).
I have nothing against competent, female leadership, btw, I just think Pelosi isn't "it". Now if women like Mrs. Cheney were in leadership positions, they'd give everyone a run for their money. In other words, we just need to find leaders with "balls" and "brains", lol.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,225698,00.html Drop in Testosterone Levels in U.S. Men, Study Finds
170
posted on
11/10/2006 7:12:15 PM PST
by
khnyny
(God Bless the Republic for which it stands)
To: Col. Bob; All
Does anyone have the video? (It exists. I saw it on Fox.) thx.
171
posted on
11/12/2006 9:24:04 AM PST
by
Mia T
(Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-171 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson