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 ...
You have a great point.
The Yankees have the same problem. Once they became successful, they started trying to maintain success, and concentrated on old high-priced veterans and neglected the development of young talent. As a result, they haven't won a World Series since 2000, in spite of having some of the best players and the highest payroll in the league.
It is time to get back to basics, and re-build from the ground up. It is telling, indeed, that there is nobody on the Republican horizon other than 60-and-up, played out warhorses like McCain and Giuliani. We need to start promoting people like Bobby Jindal and Michael Steele on the national stage, and get back to developing talent on the local level.
There should be a 1 term limit on ALL politicians . they get elected then spend that entire time building up funds and friends to get elected again .
Term limits should be imposed in the Republican Primaries. If the Democrats want to hang onto their deadwood for generations, that's their business. We need to match up our Young Guys against their Old Farts and kick their collective butts!
The correct solution: would have been to pull up the artillery & flatten Falluja. That would have sent an unmistakable message throughout the Sunni Triangle. Call it the Grozny solution. A demostration of resolve. Of course, this was never possible as the video from such an action would have caused immediate political problems for the Bush Administration. By not doing it we kicked the can down the road a couple of years, and here we are...
I believe most voters ARE stupid . Go ask the average Dem any question about politics or history . They repeat what Perkey Katie told them on the TV news. A HUGE percent of citizens believe Bush put together the 9/11 attack .I could go on all day . The MSM won this election for the Dems , no question about it .
Someone remind me again why the Demwits won elections Tuesday.
They ALL should be limited. This way they have ONE shot to do what they say they will do . Most politicians , on both sides, are after personal gain and power , nothing more .
You must be under the impression that Nancy's crowd gives a hoot about the troops. She doesn't know any of them, and nobody she knows, knows any of them. "Supporting the Troops" is just empty rhetoric for her.
US foreign policy elected from a constituency of pc poofters.
The French will love her.
She's saying this because the Dems intent is to pull out, cut military spending and apply that money to 'gimme' programs so they can ensure the future votes of the 'proletariat'.
You can't call it a war if you intend to walk away from it, because then you look weak on defense.
We have our first sound bite
Totally agree with you my friend. To win a war you must make a statement that scares the enemy to his very soul .The Suni triangle should have been leveled right off the bat .
Yeah but we have to pay the consequences for the stupidity of others. In a life and death situation we don't have that luxury.
Yes, obviously the voters who wanted to punish the President, have proved that their plans did not work, but instead surrendered the country to OBL in Iraq, and illegal in the US.
That is the stupidity of emotional voting, who many here encouraged, and now take out their anger on the Pres, who is simply doing what the "voters" requested for Iraq, and took out the firewall against illegals of Conservatives in the House.
Now you've really got me worried.
Somebody call Gen. Casey and give him the breaking news that Iraq is not a war to win but simply a "situation". Nancy wants to preside over the demise of the last front of Western civilization.
I don't agree. We should limit our own politicians, but let our enemies do whatever they want. If the voters see Republicans as young, vital and full of good ideas while the Democrats are old, ossified, self-dealing lifers, this will work to our advantage.
And then, when somebody demonstrated extraordinary ability, like Reagan, he can justify bucking the trend as long as he stays lean and hungry.
The key is that Republicans in "safe" districts should never be allowed to get comfortable. We should be much more willing to turn out Republican incumbents in free-ranging primary contests.
The above statement can't be repeated often enough!!!
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.