I can do nothing anymore, but shake my head when I read such imcompetent, pathetic, childish idiocy coming from the Democratic “leadership”. And to think that there are other incompetent, pathetic, childish, ignoramuses who support and vote for this woman.
Instead of owning up to her own failures, broken promises and lies, she instead deflects criticism and turns it on President Bush. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. No accountability whatsoever.
And people wonder why our country is in the shape in which it is in? Just look at “leaders” such as Pelosi and your fellow Americans who vote for her and her colleagues. And there you will find your answer.
House Speaker Pelosi calls Bush ‘a total failure’ (1)
WASHINGTON – President Bush has been a “total failure” in everything from the economy to the war to energy policy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday. In an interview on CNN, the California Democrat was asked to respond to video of the president criticizing the Democratic-led Congress for heading into the final 26 days of the legislative session without having passed a single government spending bill.
Hmmm, whose fault is the economy? Last I checked, it has been doing fine under the Bush Administration, no thanks to the Democrats and the mass media proclaiming it the worst economy since the Great Depression every day for the past 5 years, scaring the American people.
Hmm, whose fault is the war effort? Last I checked, it has been a great success and we have won the war effort and our military is now simply working to hand over security and control to the improving Iraqi government and military forces. No thanks to the Democrats and the mass media who have been calling this war effort a “quagmire” and comparing it unfavorable to Vietnam since 2003 – in other words, pretty much since the day it began. Not to mention all their lies the war effort, their smearing of the US military and its members and the fact that the mass media pretty much fails to report anything positive coming out of Iraq for the past 5 years.
Hmmm, whose fault is energy policy? Last I checked, the Democrats have blocked domestic oil exploration, drilling and refining for the past 3 decades, which has put us in the situation in which we find ourselves today. They also push the biggest hoax in the history of the world in ‘man-caused global warming’ which led them to passing lousy legislation which raised the world-wide price of food which has led to millions starving across the world. And today, Democrats still refuse to drill.
And yet, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have the utter audacity to blame all this on President Bush.
Since Nancy and the Democrats don’t seem to understand logic and common sense, I will just put this in terms you probably will understand: FUCK YOU, YOU INCOMPETENT, IGNORANT, PATHETIC BITCH.
Do I feel better? Nope. That will only happen when you dolts are finally out of office and have stopped mucking up this nation with your incompetence and stupidity.
Pelosi shot back in unusually personal terms.
“You know, God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States, a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject,” Pelosi replied. She then tsk-tsked Bush for “challenging Congress when we are trying to sweep up after his mess over and over and over again.”
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino defended Bush.
“What the president said is a fact — this is the longest a Congress has gone in 20 years without passing a single spending bill, so it’s clear that the speaker is feeling some frustration at their inability to do so.”
Pelosi’s outburst was a departure. Her usual practice in public has been to call Bush’s policies a failure — not his presidency or him, personally. Pelosi’s remarks are the latest evidence of the Democrats’ throw-caution-to-the-wind approach to Bush in the waning days of a presidency weighed down by an unpopular war and soaring gasoline prices.
Election Day, after all, is just over four months away; Bush’s successor takes his seat on Jan. 20.
Pelosi’s counterpart in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, long ago took off the rhetorical gloves. Last month, he ridiculed Republicans who sided with Bush on a Medicare bill.
“Who would be afraid of him?” Reid, D-Nev., said as many senators looked on. “He’s got a 29 percent approval rating.”
The public’s view of Congress is even worse. Its approval rating has hit a new low of just 18 percent, down from 23 percent last month, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll. Bush’s approval is at 28 percent, about even with the 29 percent rating last month.
Only 16 percent of those surveyed thought the country was moving in the right direction, a new low as well, although statistically the same as last month’s 17 percent.
Last week Reid and other Democrats dropped any pretense of trying to fight the president on battles they were likely to lose — even on the most important part of their jobs, which is passing spending bills that keep the government running.
Of the 12 annual appropriations bills, Congress is likely to pass one or two and send Bush a temporary spending fix for the rest. That would have to suffice until a new president takes office, Reid told reporters.
Privately, Democrats have said that either candidate for president — Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain — would be easier to make laws with than Bush. But Reid made clear which he’d prefer.
“I would hope that before we would leave here this year that we would do a continuing resolution that would get us (through) until after Senator Obama becomes president,” he said.
Yeah, because Senator Hopenchange will save us from the Congress’ utter failure and incompetence. Uh huh.
*shaking my head*
Yes, of course, those were not her exact words, but that is the message that she, and the rest of the Democrat Party, sends.
Nevermind that the Democrat Congress has not gotten one thing accomplished in over a year in power. (Oh wait, I forgot about raising the minimum wage. Now there’s an accomplishment!) Nevermind that the Iraqi government has been in existence for only a few years, the Democrats expect them to behave like the 200+ year old United States government.
If we are to believe the Democrats, a fledgling Democracy has 3+ years to come together otherwise, it is a “FAILURE!” Nevermind that the United States of America did not come together in that short of a time period, even when having the Founding Fathers as the leaders.
Nah, none of that matters to the Democrats. WE MUST SURRENDER! FAILURE! FAILURE! FAILURE! “NO SE PUEDE!”
Oh, but, don’t forget: they support the troops…
[NOTE: I posted about the letters, to which Rush refers in his monologue, HERE.]
RUSH: I want to get this news in during our first hour today, because this is the hour broadcast around the world on the Armed Forces Radio network. It’s from the Times of London. “Al-Qaeda Leaders Admit: ‘We are in Crisis. There is Panic and Fear’ — Al-Qaeda in Iraq faces an ‘extraordinary crisis.’ Last year’s mass defection of ordinary Sunnis from Al-Qaeda to the US military ‘created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight’. The terrorist group’s security structure suffered ‘total collapse.’ These are the words not of Al-Qaeda’s enemies but of one of its own leaders in Anbar province — once the group’s stronghold. They were set down last summer in a 39-page letter seized during a US raid on an Al-Qaeda base near Samarra in November. The US military released extracts from that letter yesterday along with a second seized [letter] in another November raid that is almost as startling. … US intelligence officials cautioned, however, that the documents were snapshots of two small areas and that Al-Qaeda was far from a spent force.”
Now, the story does mention here on page two, “The Anbar letter conceded that the ‘crusaders’ — Americans — had gained the upper hand by persuading ordinary Sunnis that Al-Qaeda was responsible for their suffering and by exploiting their poverty to entice them into the security forces.” So the point of the story is: Hey, the Iraqis didn’t get to this conclusion all by themselves. They had to be talked into it by the Americans, and that isn’t fair in a time of war. The Americans talked the Sunnis out of being with Al-Qaeda in Iraq! So whenever there’s good news, it has to be sprinkled and peppered with pessimism. At the same time, Nancy Pelosi has called Iraq a failure. She said twice yesterday — we’ve got the audio on this, “‘Iraq is a failure,’ adding that President Bush’s troop surge has not produced the desired effect. ‘The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq. They’ve not done that.” She then hastened to add, by the way, “The troops have succeeded. God bless them.” Let’s go to the audio sound bites, just near the end of the stack here. It’s number 20. Here it is. This is from Late Edition, Wolf Blitzed yesterday, who said to Pelosi, “You’re not worried all the gains that have been achieved over the past year in Iraq might be lost?”
PELOSI: There haven’t been gains, Wolf. The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure! The troops have succeeded. God bless them. We owe them the greatest debt of gratitude, the sacrifice, their patriotism, and for their courage, and to their families as well. This is a — a disaster, and we cannot perpetuate it. We have to make decisions. And this is — the loss of life of nearly 4,000 of our troops, an average of 800 a year, tens of thousands injured; some of them permanently, blind, amputations.
RUSH: Thank goodness. I’m so happy the Democrats are back on page on this. Here we are in the middle of Iraq. I want to send out a hearty congratulations with sincere love and devotion and awe and respect to all of you wearing the military uniform of this country, in whatever branch in which you serve. Those of you in Iraq, those of you in Afghanistan, those of you who have been, those of you who are back, those of you who are back and going back; God bless you. You are succeeding. You are achieving victory — and let it be heard, the Democrat Party leadership today has no desire for your victory to be known. They have no desire for your victory to be proposed and accepted by the American people. You keep on, because Americans understand that you are succeeding and we understand this because Iraq is not even on the table as an election issue. Nobody is even talking about it on the Democrat side here. Now, one thing about this. Bill Kristol wrote a piece, his most recent piece in the Weekly Standard, and he really took after Rick Santorum in this piece, and I have to bring this up.
Rick Santorum was excoriated by Bill Kristol as a Reagan conservative, and Kristol is making the point that we need a new conservatism now that has a new definition that includes a big and activist government doing the kind of things that the new conservatives want it to do. He says, I’m paraphrasing here, “We can’t rely on the old conservatism. I mean, look at Santorum! Santorum lost by 17 points. Don’t tell me that that’s the way conservatism needs to go.” One thing about this that needs to be pointed out: One of the reasons — and I say, one of the primary reasons that most supporters of McCain; I don’t care if they’re independents, liberals, Democrats, or Republicans — one of the reasons that people support McCain is because of his leadership on foreign policy and his support of the surge, correct? People say, “He’ll keep us safe. He’s a war veteran. He’s a POW. He’s got honor. He’s got integrity.” Well, let me tell you something. Rick Santorum may have lost by 17 points in Philadelphia. But let me remind you what his number-one campaign issue was. His number-one campaign issue, in a liberal state, was to try to tell voters of that state — the residents of Pennsylvania — that the big threat we faced was the threat of Islamic Jihad, radical Islamofascism; and he lost by 17 points on it, in a liberal state, that didn’t want to hear it.
To excoriate Santorum for losing by 17 points when he was using the same issue McCain has used to get the nomination, is disingenuous. It is unfortunate, and it’s unfair. It was not just Senator McCain, by the way, if I can insert myself here who supported the president during the surge. Those of us on talk radio who are being excoriated by members of our own party led the way in supporting the president throughout the Iraq war. Throughout four years of Democrats attempting to destroy it, to secure defeat, to own defeat, to prevent the president from succeeding, trying to bog the president down when it comes to his prosecution of the war, who was there every day defending it, supporting the president, and encouraging him to go on, despite what the media was saying, despite what Democrats were saying, despite Harry Reid, despite Pelosi? It was those of us on talk radio. Yet somehow Senator McCain is getting singular and sole credit for having supported the surge and seeing to it that it was successful. Don’t forget Rick Santorum. He went down in defeat trying to alert the people of his state what was most important.
In other words, “be careful what you wish for”. Rick Santorum was voted out of office based on his support for the war effort. Joe Lieberman was also kicked out of the Democrat Party, based on his support for the war effort. John McCain will not be winning any “blue” states in the general election based on his support for the war effort.
First, let’s get the depressing bullcrap out of the way. Here is what the Democrat Party thinks of the progress and success accomplished by our men and women of the United States military in Iraq:
[ … ] The president said that last year, particularly at the end, “has become incredibly successful beyond anybody’s expectations.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., took issue. “It is a failure of leadership when our president calls 2007 incredibly successful beyond anybody’s expectations when the Iraqi government has done so little to achieve stability and it has been the most lethal year yet for American troops,” they said in a statement.
But, do not forget, they ‘support the troops’ and we should never, ever question their patriotism.
Of course let us not forget what the Democrats were saying about the plan for Iraq last year:
“It’s interesting. We have had, this week, the colonel in charge of Anbar Province say that it’s a civil war; it’s been lost.”
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
September 13, 2006
“I oppose an escalation of U.S. troops, which I do not believe will contribute to long-term success in Iraq.”
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
January 18, 2007
The article referenced below outlines exactly what I’ve been saying over the past two years — “We haven’t been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically — and that’s where wars are won and lost.”
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)
Quoting a Washington Post Article
September 11, 2006
“The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al-Qaida said to these tribes, ‘We have to fight al-Qaida ourselves.’ It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here.”
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
September 4, 2007
But, again, don’t you dare question their patriotism or their faith in and support of the United States military.
But anyway, now on to some analysis from people who do not have their heads shoved firmly and snugly up their effing asses…
Gateway Pundit: SURGE SUCCESS!!… Anbar Province Will Be Handed Over In March
Gateway Pundit: Iraqi Newspapers Go On Attack Against Al-Qaeda
Gateway Pundit: 64,000 Iraqis Return Home From Syria
Jules Crittenden: Fixing Potholes
Michael Yon: Moment of Truth in Iraq
[ … ] There’s only a small group of writers who honestly spend enough time in Iraq to make serious claims based on firsthand accounts. But I’ve seen the Iraqi Army with my own eyes. I’ve done many missions in 2005 and 2007, in many places in Iraq, along with the Iraqi Army: please believe me when I say that, on the whole, the Iraqi Army is remarkably better in 2007 and far more effective than it was in 2005. By 2007, the Iraqis were doing most of the fighting. And . . . this is very important . . . they see our Army and Marines as serious allies, and in many cases as friends. Please let the potential implications of that sink in.
We now have a large number of American and British officers who can pick up a phone from Washington or London and call an Iraqi officer that he knows well — an Iraqi he has fought along side of — and talk. Same with untold numbers of Sheiks and government officials, most of whom do not deserve the caricatural disdain they get most often from pundits who have never set foot in Iraq. British and American forces have a personal relationship with Iraqi leaders of many stripes. The long-term intangible implications of the betrayal of that trust through the precipitous withdrawal of our troops could be enormous, because they would be the certain first casualties of renewed violence, and selling out the Iraqis who are making an honest-go would make the Bay of Pigs sell-out seem inconsequential. The United States and Great Britain would hang their heads in shame for a century.
[ … ]
Throughout most of 2007, as I’ve watched General Petraeus’ strategy being implemented, I have observed the impact his change in strategy was having on our soldiers, on Iraqi security forces, and most importantly, on Iraqi people including some who were formerly our avowed enemies. I have seen how our own military morphed into something much more agile, and I came to see how American commanders tended to be the most trusted voices in Iraq for many Iraqis.
To be sure, the “Anbar Awakening” and other signs of progress were underway before the massive strategy overhaul occurred, and nobody can track and trace all the factors involved in this fantastically complex war, but one thing was certain: the momentum was shifting in favor of a stable Iraq for the first time. The institutional knowledge reservoir was becoming vast, and success was touted and shared. It may have been true that Americans knew very little about Iraq before the invasion, but it was for certain that American commanders had now developed an intimate understanding of the goings-on. It can be said with confidence that as a group, no non-Iraqis know more about Iraq than the US military.
Michael Totten: The Rings on Zarqawi’s Finger
For all the hatred in the Middle East, there is also forgiveness, and moderation. Where are the moderate Muslims? ask many Americans. I find the question bizarre. I meet them every day in Iraq, and everywhere else in the Middle East, too. The problem is they have a hard time getting attention in newspapers and magazines that wallow in sensationalism.
“What happened before, happened,” said Omar, returning to the discussion of the American invasion with the Iraqi Police. “One mistake was committed, but it’s gone. Let’s just close it and not keep analyzing the same problem again. According to our analysis, American troops are now here to help Iraq.”
Sheik Abdul Sattar Abu Risha made similar points, a bit more eloquently, to Johns Hopkins University Professor Fouad Ajami: “Our American friends had not understood us when they came. They were proud, stubborn people and so were we. They worked with the opportunists, now they have turned to the tribes, and this is as it should be. The tribes hate religious parties and religious fakers.”
“We have promised to work with the Americans against Al Qaeda,” Ahmed continued. “And that’s it. That is all we are allowed to say about politics. But I can say that I feel the sincerity in the American support for the Iraqi civilians here. I am not going to say any bad words about Americans. I can feel that they really are eager to accomplish that mission.”
Bill Roggio: Operation Phantom Phoenix Targets al Qaeda Havens
Despite the recent success in reducing the violence in Iraq, the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq and the Shia extremist terror groups is not over. Coalition and Iraqi forces have launched Operation Phantom Phoenix, a new operation targeting the terror groups throughout Iraq.
The scope of Phantom Phoenix is nationwide. The operation is “a series of joint Iraqi and Coalition division- and brigade-level operations to pursue and neutralize remaining al-Qaeda in Iraq and other extremist elements,” Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, the commander of Multinational Corps Iraq stated. “Phantom Phoenix will synchronize lethal and non-lethal effects to exploit recent security gains and disrupt terrorist support zones and enemy command and control.”
The specific geographical locations targeted during Phantom Phoenix were not identified. Iraqi and Coalition forces will “pursue al-Qaeda and other extremists wherever they attempt to take sanctuary,” Odierno said.
Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive: Blackfive TV- Surge Anniversary & Big Bombing Day
John McCain and Joe Lieberman: The Surge Worked
Rudy Giuliani: War on Terror Conversations: Rudolph Giuliani [Video]
Deebow at Blackfive: Why am I only hearing about this now?
Subsunk at Blackfive: The Finest Ambassadors
[ … ] But it is a lesson which we need not have learned over and over again over the course of the last 7 years in our endeavors to change the radical Islamic approach to coexistence (“Good Muslims rule and Infidels and Apostates die” might be the simplest way to put that).
The Finest Ambassador from America will always be a United States Soldier with a rifle in one hand and candy in the other. No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy is a philosophy which is known and understood throughout the World. Even by Islamofascists.
“While we will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam’s oppression.” Got that?
Although imperfectly executed sometimes over the intervening years (as Mike Yon points out), you can plainly see that the underlying strategy involved in winning over our enemies has not changed one iota since the war began. Give a decent American soldier a chance to set the example, and the whole world will eventually beat its way towards your line of thought.
Any more talk of Defeat and Retreat merely means the Dhimmicrats and cowardly Rethuglicans of the same stripe don’t care if they undo everything the American Fighting Man has done over the last 6 years. More blood doesn’t mean a thing to them as long as they get reelected. Men will insist the War be Won and brought to an end the only way it can end. With a Victory.
Matt Burden at Blackfive: Operations Continue…
Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard: They Can’t Handle the Truth – The Democrats and the Surge
And finally, hear from the Man of the Year himself, GEN David Petraeus [via Steve Schippert at NRO THE TANK]: One Man Caucus: 7 Questions for Gen. Petraeus
In what is an excellent interview published at Foreign Policy, Italy’s RAI asked David Petraeus seven questions. His answers are very informative and easy for average Americans to wrap their heads around, sans often wonkish and technical counterinsurgency lingo that so often loses many right out of the gate in such discussions.
General Petraeus even somewhat dispels the title of the interview, “Seven Questions: Gen. David Petraeus on Winding down the Surge.” He notes that it is proper to be more precise and note that it is a draw down of American forces in ‘The Surge,” but that with increasing Iraqi roles, “The Surge” will continue.
Once again, I encourage you to get all your military news and analysis of military matters from MILBLOGS. Journalists, politicians, political pundits and bloggers really do not know what they are talking about when it comes to military matters. They all speak about military matters through a political or ideological anti- or pro-military bias. If you want the best objective analysis, go visit the MILBLOGS.