Behar to Pelosi: Impeach Bush and Cheney!

Photo of Justin McCarthy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s liberal policies are not sufficient for "The View’s" Joy Behar. Why? Pelosi does not support impeaching the president and vice president. On the July 28 edition Behar hammered Speaker Pelosi on impeachment. [audio available here]

"You’ve ruled against impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney. And now Kucinich is trying to pass that. Why do you, why do you insist on not impeaching these people so that the world and America can really see the crimes that they’ve committed?"

After going through a long laundry list of the Democrats’ agenda, Pelosi noted the president needs to approve legislation and there is not adequate evidence that the administration committed a crime.

Barbara Walters, who previously hit Pelosi from the left, noted Congress’ dismal approval ratings. Elisabeth Hasselbeck brought up the success of the surge. Pelosi, in predictable Democratic talking points, refused to concede success because of the alleged failure to meet political reconciliation.

Relevant portions of the transcript are below.

ELISABETH HASSELBECK: When Katie Couric was interview him [Obama] he still didn’t admit in clear terms that the surge was a success, the surge that he indeed did oppose, and we would be in a different situation had he been making the decisions there. Do you still feel that same way that the surge was not a success?

HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: We had this conversation before Elisabeth. The surge’s purpose was to have a military time frame where there would be military security to enable the government of Iraq to make the political changes necessary for reconciliation. I said it before when I was here and I’ll say it again: Even with all of the time that has elapsed, they still have not done that.

HASSELBECK: The sectarian violence is down, the civilian deaths are down. I think we need to acknowledge-

PELOSI: The security has, has been improved, but the purpose of the surge was to pass the laws to bring the reconciliation, so we can bring our troops home safely soon honorably and responsibly. And that has not happened. Now the government of Iraq is saying "we want you to go home." So maybe the time has come for us to sit down with them and figure that out.

[...]

JOY BEHAR: You’ve ruled against impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney. And now Kucinich is trying to pass that. Why do you, why do you insist on not impeaching these people so that the world and America can really see the crimes that they’ve committed?

[applause]

PELOSI: Well, I think that it- I think it was important- When I became speaker- and by the way, a very important position, president, vice president, speaker of the House- I saw it as my responsibility to try to bring a much divided country together to the extent that we could. I thought that impeachment would be divisive for the country. In terms of what we wanted to set out to do, we wanted to raise the minimum wage, give the biggest increase in veterans benefits to veterans in 77 year history, the veteran- pass research in stem cell- the stem cell research, all of that. This week we’re going to pass equal pay for equal work. It has been a long time in coming [applause], pay equity. We’re going to pass legislation for product safety, for toys that children put in them. There’s an agenda that you have to get done, that you have to try to do it in a bipartisan way. The president has to sign it. If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story.

BEHAR: Can they still do it after he is out?

BARBARA WALTERS: When, when we first- when I interviewed you last year, you had just begun, and you were going to clean up the mess, remember?

PELOSI: We did.

WALTERS: You, you look around this country, 75 percent of the country, forget George Bush, thinks that Congress is doing a lousy job.

HASSELBECK: I think it’s 91 percent now.

PELOSI: Well, I don’t disagree with that because largely it’s predicated on ending the war in Iraq. That’s the main question, and we were not successful. In our House of Representatives, I’m very proud of our members because they voted overwhelmingly over and over again to bring the war to an end, to bring the troops home safely and soon, send it to the Senate, and it hits a dead end. But in terms of that particular standard, I would say I disapprove as well. But we do, we passed some of the things I just mentioned, the energy bill. We worked in a bipartisan way, and ovation, agenda, we have to create jobs, expand health care, protect the American people, and educate our children. And you can’t do that if you’re trying to impeach the president at the same time, unless you have the goods that this president committed these crimes.

BEHAR: They did it to Clinton.

PELOSI: But they didn’t have the goods and it was wrong, and it was wrong, and it was wrong when they did that. Not that I- I have total disagreement with president on the war, the reason why we went in, which was based on a false premise. But that’s a different story than saying "can we try to get something accomplished for people," have concerns about the economy and the rest.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"Relevant portions of the

"Relevant portions of the transcript are below."

There is something oxymoronic about that statement ...

and there is something moronic in regard to Joy.

All generalizations are false, including this one.” Mark Twain

There is something oxymoronic about that statement ...

Boom! Pow! Direct hit!  <ROFL>

nice line Ignatz ( and how ohhhh so true )

OK, I now consider it my

OK, I now consider it my duty to post this in every thread about her:

Once more, Joy Behar speaks, and removes all doubt.

 

Obama's theme song

what scares me.....

is that she was a high school teacher on long island,ny she probably got a life time achivement award from the N.E.A. [teachers union] when she got fired. a double bagger if there ever was one.

Behar is an embarrassment

Behar is an embarrassment to the human race.

"Forget change, I want improvement!"

Joyce Behar

Go home, Joyce.   Go home and stay there.

No one, (got that!!!) No one cares what you

say.    You haven't got a braincell working.

Their 9% approval rating

It's not because of Iraq. It's because they've done nothing to deal with energy prices, illegal immigration, the economy, earmarks, entitlement programs, out-of-control spending, do I need to go on? And I'll bet good money that the brilliant minds on The View never bothered asking Pelosi about any of that.

Blowhard

BEHAR: They did it to Clinton.

What a childish remark. 

I still don't understand why Barbara Walters pays this woman's salary.  What speck of journalistic integrity Walters ever had is long gone due to hanging around with lowlifes like Behar.

Behar

Blowhard, couldn't have said it better...

Childish?

Joy Behar debates like a child.

Can you imagine a leader in the United States saying something like this: "And you can’t do that if you’re trying to impeach the president at the
same time, unless you have the goods that this president committed
these crimes."

"Have the goods"? Who talks like this in real life? It's called "evidence" Madam Speaker, and it is impossible for you to have any of it in this case.

I wish those numbskulls would try to impeach George W. Bush. That would be the stupidest political move in the history of this nation. But, the Speaker of the House should not go on a t.v. show that is equivalent to a Longaberger Basket party at the edge of hell and use infantile terms like "Have the goods" when talking about one of the leaders of the free world.

This woman is truly, truly stupid. She needs to quit sniffing the sewer gasses in Washington and San Francisco. Maybe she breathed too much of it in B-mo when she was a kid.

She's the worst Speaker of the House in our history.

Talk About Stupid

"This woman is truly, truly stupid."

And the people that voted for her?  Is there a word that describes that level of stupidity?

Nancy is outright lying,

Nancy is outright lying, but she has no choice, does she? If she admits that the surge worked, then she undercuts Obama’s whole rationale for becoming president. But if she says it didn’t work, it won’t hurt her, because the surge’s actual success means that no one will get blamed for a loss. 

It does present a dilemma about Maliki, though. If she holds that we should follow Maliki’s advice and pull out, unless she’s willing to pull out regardless of the consequences, Pelosi has to admit that Maliki is in a strong enough position to allow a pullout at all – which means the surge worked.  But if the Iraqi government still isn’t strong enough to sustain itself (as she suggests by the fact that the political reconciliation hasn’t occurred), then Maliki’s advice to pull out can’t be trusted – which undercuts Obama. 

Again, the Democrats say anything that suits them, and no one calls them on it.

It's an open question

We'll never know what would have happened if in Jan. 2007 we had decided to begin the pullout of American troops rather than embrace a "surge" strategy. It could have led to a worse outcome for Iraqis, it could have been a better outcome for them and us. Only now is Maliki flexing what muscle he thinks he has in asking us to leave. Only now is Maliki publicly pondering an Iraq without an occupying army. Could we have sped that process along had different decisions been made in Jan. 2007? We'll never know. What we do know is there have been over 1,000 American causalities in Iraq since the surge began.

We'll never know what would

We'll never know what would have happened if in July 28, 2008 bloggy would have decided to think before posting rather than embrace a "post without thought" strategy. It could have led to a worse outcome for bloggy, it could have been a better outcome for him and us. Only now is bloggy flexing what brain matter he thinks he has in asking us to these questions. Only now is bloggy publicly pondering his actions. Could we have sped that process along had different decisions been made in July 28, 2008? We'll never know. What we do know is there have millions of his brain cells in causalities since the post began.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Sorry you think so little of 1,000 American casualties...

that you find it easy to mock my mention of them.

You surprise me a little with your calousness. But only a little.

Look, you admitted yourself

Look, you admitted yourself that we don't know what would have happened had we gone with a different strategy. We might have had no deaths, or 2000 deaths since then. Yet you point to the deaths since the surge began seemingly as an indication of it being the wrong decision. Or are you just throwing that out there for no reason?

Obama's theme song

1000 casualties? sounds a

1000 casualties? sounds a little high to me...

but we call them heroes here - not "casualties"

just like we don't call Jesus a "casualty" of the Romans, or the ACLU...

blogonator

So your heart's been very heavy over the 1,000 we've lost in the last 1 1/2 years who successfully sacrificed to bring peace and stability to a new democracy in the Middle East?

How about the, gosh, I don't even know the statistics, but the way-more than 1,000 police officers lost since Januaray '07, or the thousands upon thousands of car accident fatalities, or the thousands upon thousands of crime/homicide casualties, etc.?

Have you been thinking a lot of all of them? Those deaths, btw, were completely senseless.

 

* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change

"that's

"that's different"

because it shoots down his pathetic attempt to gain some semblance of moral high ground 

Soldier casualties

Where do you get that he thinks little of the 1,000 soldier casualties? I don't see it.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

"It could be the answer to our age-old, philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' PLASTIC!"

I mock you because of your

I mock you because of your post.  My brother is in Afghanistan right now.  It is not because I make light of the casualties I do not but you use them like teh lefty MSM to further your own ends.  You do not honor thme or mourn them, if you did then you would be quiet about them.  Your only purpose is to chide and mock.  So, I thought if you were mcked it might be interesting.

I guess I stooped down towards your level of callausness and should be ashamed of my actions.

I saterized your post because it was pretty much nonsense.  The surge was needed to stabilize th country so Malaki could get his country together politically.  The support of teh people behind him and have some hope of freedom.  So I hope the satire helped you.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Good for you then

My purpose, which you so ably ignored for your own ends, was to encourage people who want to call the surge an undeniable success to take a sober look at what it cost us, what we gained and what we lost. If you're happy with the cost-benefit analysis of this military action, good for you. For myself, I disagree with that assessment. The longer we delay our eventual departure, the more it will cost us in lives and treasure, and the longer it will take Iraqis to get their act together. If however we are breeding dependency instead of democracy, then we're doing a heckuva job.

blog, the surge is an

blog, the surge is an undeniable success. Well, for any sane thinking person, anyway. You can disagree all you want. It dont make a dimes worth of difference. You total lack of military actions defers your assessments to ignorance of said military. The thing that bothers me most about your inane ramblings on the military is the fact that you have always cowered behind them and never stood with them. But you will be one of the first to scream for their aid if the terrorists bomb your building, in your city.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

If you're happy with the

If you're happy with the cost-benefit analysis of this military action, good for you - And I think you fail to remember the casualties before the surge and what they are now.  Yes we have had many, and any of our men and women are too many.  I can see you dont think anything is worth fighting for.  In any war there will be casualties, the number depends on a range of factors.  You can armchair quaterback all you want but I think we did the right actions.

I suppose you look at WWII and 2 atom bombs as unnecessary and brutal.  We can always talk our way to victory sometimes it requires sacrifice, hopefully the enemy will sacrifice.  I beleve you only look at teh cost benefit ratio when it is comfortable for you.  Do you look at the cost benefit ration when looking at say a police force in the USA?  Or firefighters or ... I think you get the idea.

And you would say teh cost benefit is good because you can see teh benefit directlt to you.  When Jesus died on teh cross for you was he looking at a cost benefit ratio, no he was looking at how it benefited you and me and everyone.  So, sometimes you better be glad someone said the hell with the cost lets do it anyway.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

It comes back to your implied question

"you dont think anything is worth fighting for"

What is worth fighting for? Assuming Iraq did have a functioning nuclear program, or some other forms of WMD, or some ability to strike at its neighbors at a moment's notice with anything much greater than sticks and rocks, was the War and all we've lost in its name worth it? Now that we've proved those theses wrong or exaggerated, what makes it worth staying in that country? I can't think of a good reason. Not now nor in Jan. 2007. We cannot bring lasting democracy to any country by force. We can't heal 1400 years of sectarian conflict by force either. From the perspective of the average Iraqi, I don't see what good our continued presense does. From my own perspective it all seems like a very costly waste. Seen the budget defecit lately?

I am grateful for our military, but to equate their actions with the actions of Jesus Christ is to deify our leaders. Caesar wasn't God. Neither is President Bush nor Gen. Petreus. Not every military action is justified nor every military death.

Hopeless

Reading your posts, it's obvious that you don't understand the concept of sacrifice for "the greater good." And you'll refuse to understand it no matter what anyone says. You twist what people say, and argue against straw men. No, you CAN'T force people into a democracy, one would have to be stupid to believe you can. You CAN give people a chance to ESTABLISH a democracy by killing or driving out the people standing in the way. To my mind, the worst thing you could do to a country is to remove a regime, then cut out and leave them holding the bag.

But you'll just say the Iraqis don't want a democracy, or they don't deserve a democracy. You'll quote some that don't want us there, but there were Tories during the American Revolution.

Here's a point for you to ponder: had any British colony ever gained their freedom by force prior to 1776? And where would you have come down on that one, patriot or Tory? Would you have risked it?

Thirty

Here's that hubris again

Western Civilization has been discussing what is "good" since at least the time of Plato and surely long before then. For you or anyone to claim to have that figured out is dubious at best.

You CAN give people a chance to ESTABLISH democracy by letting them reach that goal on their own terms, or not. If you really believed in self-determination, you wouldn't be so impatient to have everyone agree with you.

Blogonator, I hope you or

Blogonator, I hope you or anyone else you know never gets kidnapped; or fall into an abandoned well; or get involved in a car accident; or an avalanch; or a fire; or any disastor whatsoever. Because then we, as a society, will have to weigh the costs of our sacrifice to get you or your loved ones out of the situation you find yourself in.

To put this in your own words, if you ever get into one of those situations, and you want to get out of it -- please do so ON YOUR OWN TERMS. You can reach your goal of being rescued on your own, without endangering anyone else. That way, you won't feel bad if someone is killed or injured trying to rescue your sorry ass.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Apple, meet Orange

As if pulling my unconcious body from a burning building, to take one of your examples, can be reasonably compared to invading Iraq. We know a lot about rescuing people from burning buildings, and we have a general societal consensus that doing so is a good thing. We don't know much of anything about setting up a functioning democracy in the Middle East--witness this whole Iraq debacle of the last five years--nor do we have any kind of societal consensus that spreading "freedom" at the barrel of a gun is a good thing.

So, you really are from

So, you really are from Pluto, aren't you?

Name me one war -- just one -- where the stated objective by the victor was not to occupy territory for the winning country? And that's exactly what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. And yet you make empty statements like "spreading freedom at the barrel of a gun". You simply are a troll -- an empty-suited liberal with no class whatsoever.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

the elephant the media seems to miss...

The purpose of Iraq was not to "spread freedom."  Nobody can convince me that those in the upper echelons of power chose Iraqi regime change because they wanted to spread the love around.  No, there most certainly was a reason for it, one that became very imperative after 9-11-01.  My guess is that Iraq was meant as a counter-offensive, not against Iraq specifically, but against the region as a whole.  "Islamic terrorism" is based upon an extremist religious ideological fortress, one that is will always produce new terrorists, and one that will stop at nothing (demonstrated on 9-11-01).  The only way to counter this, aside from wiping them all out (a non-option from the modern Western standpoint), is to counter the ideology with a more attractive ideology, that of Western liberty (and capitalism).  Given the universal dislike of Saddam, Iraq's defiance of the UN, the possibility of WMD, the threat to regional stability and, yes, the world's oil stockpiles, Iraq was probably selected as the Normandy beachhead of the war on terror.  Alas, there was miscalculation this time around, however, not least of which was that our traditional allies lost their backbone sometime between 1944 and 2002.

I seem to recall Bush and

I seem to recall Bush and others saying we were there to spread democracy.

balboa, glad to see you are still lurking out there....

Yes, that's what's called the "cover story," and strictly speaking, it's not untrue.  It's just that the "spreading of democracy" is, in reality, a counter-offensive against radical Islam (of course, this assumes the common folk out there possess the standard human faculties of reason).  The fortress of Islamic extremism has been breached, but will it last?  IMHO, one of the largest miscalculations of the administration was the betrayal of our allies, and our own media and Leftist political machine.

Bal, That's not the

Bal,

That's not the argument. The argument is the inflammatory phrase "spreading democracy at the point of a gun". Essentially, blogonator has just equated the United States with the most vile, ruthless dictators the world has seen. It's a blatent lie, and people who say things like that are either dumb as dirt; really brainwashed; or just trying to rile things up. Thus, the argument.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Essentially, your conclusion is baseless

Tell me who I am equating the US to? Who else invades countries to spread freedom? Not vile dictators. Maybe the British Empire back in the day, but it wasn't "freedom" per se as much as "civilization."

No, either you don't understand the phrase, or you're deliberately obfuscating my point.

Well, of the three choices

Well, of the three choices (people who say things like that are either dumb as dirt; really brainwashed; or just trying to rile things up), it's clear now which applies to you. LOL.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Who else invades countries

Who else invades countries to spread freedom?  And I ask you if  France was invaded by the Allies in WWII or Germany and why?  What was the purpose?  I will tell you we did not invade Afghanistan to spread freedom, we did it to kill AQ and hopefully cut off their head.  We also did not resume the 1991 war with Iraq spread freedom as we did it to depose Saddam.  No the spreading of the freedom is a by product of getting rid of the dictators.  This is what you don't understand.

First you rid the patient of the cancer then you help them to get better and be able to function on their own.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

The surge is an "undeniable

The surge is an "undeniable success." Even Obamessiah couldn't deny it. Did it have a cost? Of course it did! Did it have a benefit? Working toward a stable, functioning democracy in the ME? Yeah, I think so. And I'll bet the majority of the soldiers involved, including the casualties, think so too. But I'm sure you'd prefer to cut and run, oops, I meant a "phased withdrawal" with "timetables." And when al-Queda waltzes back in, and starts rounding up "collaborators," what will you say then?

Your "purpose?" Your only "purpose" was to pull out that nice, round "1000 casualties" number. That's the only purpose you had. We don't need you to tell us what's worth considering. Do you think you were telling us something we didn't know?

Those 1000 soldiers may have saved another 5000 Iraqi deaths. "We'll never know." Does that matter to you? Aren't all good leftists generally more concerned with other lives, besides just American lives? Isn't that more of a "jingoistic, nativist," conservative thing?

And you think no one but you considers those deaths. You think you're somehow so much more "enlightened" than us knuckle-draggers. Why is it you think we only see those fallen soldiers as numbers? Is it maybe because that's how you see them? Just more numbers for you to toss around in your quest to prove your point. Good for you! 

Yeah, I read your "purpose" loud and clear!

Not quite

Let me try this game... YOUR purpose is to label me as your favorite demon leftist who calls service members baby-killers and drives a Prius all of which serves your cause by allowing you to better ignore my ACTUAL purpose. That felt good. I can see the appeal.

Look, I'm not in the business of fortune telling, but I will say this: If you can't conceive of success in Iraq without the Surge, I think your imagination might be in need of an overhaul. And if you think we can bring lasting democracy by force or heal the Shia / Sunni rift by force, I think your hubris generator might be running a bit hot.

Look, I'm not in the

Look, I'm not in the business of fortune telling - And why are you trying to be by postulating an outcome without the surge?  It seems you are trying to be a bit trollish.  One thing is what has happened has happened, the resumption of the 1991 war in Iraq, the surge and now deaths are way down.  So what should we do now?

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Callousness?

He's mocking you, dude, not the casualties. Get over yourself. 

To you, those casualties are merely your way of keeping score. Folks like you just loved watching that casualty number climb, crying "see, see, Bush was wrong!" They're your political football, to be whipped out whenever you don't have any real ammo. They're your fall-back position to prove that "Bush lied, people died." And you lay a charge of "calousness" [sic] on any who call you on it? Because you care so much more than anyone else, right?

But those soldiers are just political cannon-fodder to you. Just numbers to use for your Bush-bashing, Monday-morning quarterbacking.

So go ahead. I'd wear the label "calous" from you any day, and proudly. Because I haven't spent the last 5 years drooling in anticipation of more casualties, higher death-counts, just so I can "win" (in my own mind, if nowhere else) some online debate. 

Quite unlike some people.

IJ... Bulls-Eye! "Americ

IJ...

Bulls-Eye!

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

 Ever think about how many

 Ever think about how many lives were saved by their sacrifices.

 

 

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

We'll never know

 Hey blog

 We'll never know what would have happened if : the polo caca dim-o-craps and lib-o-craps would have said at the begining of the war; ok, the leaders of my country have entered us into this war, and maybe i don't agree with it, but our soldiers are risking they're lives to serve the country and do what the country has asked them to do, so lets get behind our troops and our country and get in there and win this thing and get it over with. We will never know how many of those troops would still be alive today if "you people" you gutless shameless back stabbing throat cutting liberal dim-o-craps had'nt of aided and abetted the enemy and did every cheap stunt you could do to try to force us to lose this war. So when you get the blood washed off your hands, then maybe you can run your mouth about casualties.

  kilrod

Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier

  Your right, imagine our

 

Your right, imagine our strength if we all fought together, like we have done before. The only reason any of these countries act the way they do, is because the see and listen to the Dems and think we are weak

 

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

Good to hear from you, blogonator

If we're dealing entirely in the realm of possibilities, sure, anything's possible. However, some points to consider:

The reason the surge worked was much more due to a change in strategy, not just the number of soldiers. Petraeus' counter-insurgency strategy is a change of approach, not just more soldiers doing the same thing. Put simply, the military changed from a containment to an engagement strategy. That's what made the difference. It is true that the Anbar Awakening certainly started when the local Sunnis rejected the atrocities of al-Qaeda. But they would have had nowhere to go, no alternatives, unless the Petraeus-strategy was in place.

On the other hand, to hope that it would have turned around without the surge, would be to expect the Iraqis ... who until then had shown absolutely no ability or desire to resolve their sectarian differences ... to have magically had a surge of peacefulness and reconciliation. Second, it would have required the Iraqis to magically transform themselves into political heroes, forging tough and disciplined civil agreements despite the fact that they had been a subject and repressed people for decades. Third, it would have meant that the Iranians and Syrians and al-Qaeda would have selflessly stayed away from interfering in local Iraq affairs.

Other than that, you're right, it's an open question whether the surge worked.

 

Another thing to keep in

Another thing to keep in mind, KC, is that before Petraeus did this, we didn't really know how to deal with this situation. None of our military experience to date had prepared us for this type of situation on such a large scale. In WWII, we dealt with urban warfare by destroying the city -- we couldn't do that here. Also, WWII and Korea dealt with uniformed soldiers. And even in Vietnam, we didn't have to deal with the outright terrorism and total lack of respect for human life like we had to in Iraq.

So, we learned, and Petraeus had to write the manual before we could implement the strategy. None of this has been easy, but we have learned a lot and it's now working.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Agreed

I am more convinced than ever that the American military has become the most flexible, adaptive, and innovative force the world has ever known. I study books about game theory and the logic of strategy in philosophy. These guys have to put theories into action, and they've taken strategy to a higher plane.

Sure, every grunt thinks the brass is a conspiratorial cluster ****, but that's part of the game. (You should have seen the Jesuits.) And any large group, laced with bureaucracy, is going to be filled with every vice you can find. And yes, they started the first few years of this war flopping around for the right approach. But overall, if you step back and think about what they've accomplished over the last couple decades ... it's absolutely amazing. They haven't just learned to fight different armies on different terrains. They've learned to inculturate into vastly different cultures. They win with their minds as much as their weapons. And as Colin Powell famously said, we've never asked for an inch of territory, except enough space to bury the soldiers who gave their lives for freedom.

Good points. And now we

Good points. And now we need to await the emergence of those soldiers that took part in the surge. They have learned a lot, and will be applying that knowledge as they train future soldiers; take command of future companies and squadrons; and enter civilian life. I hope they don't tolerate the fools that we currently put up with, and instead do the right things necessary for the continued freedom and protection of this country and our interests around the world.

An example is the recent comment made by blogonator earlier "spreading freedom at the barrel of a gun". People like that are so narrow-minded, stupid, and short-sighted that they become dangerous in large numbers. They would give away this country at a whim, just so they won't hurt some dictator's or terrorist's feelings, without realizing they will be counted amongst the dead or imprisoned after the give-away is completed.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

KC

Well stated, as usual.

"The reason the surge worked was much more due to a change in strategy, not just the number of soldiers. Petraeus' counter-insurgency strategy is a change of approach, not just more soldiers doing the same thing."

Exactly.  I have never liked the catch-term "surge" which merely sounds like propaganda for "escalation."  They should've come up with a more descriptive term.  Everyone on the Left presents the "surge" simply as a troop escalation, something they know Americans are generally adverse to in the wake of Vietnam.

Thanks

You know, when I first read Petraeus' counterinsurgency manual, it struck me how powerful, and yet how simple it was. The insurgents try to convince the locals that the government is corrupt and worthless, to encourage them to join the rebellion. Petraeus' solution? Make the government honest and useful. I mean, it doesn't get any simpler than that.

Stupid people make simple things seem complicated. Smart people take complicated things and make them seem simple. In my opinion, Petraeus is a very smart guy.

"Stupid people make simple

"Stupid people make simple things seem complicated. Smart people take complicated things and make them seem simple."

Spot on, again.  If I didn't know any better, I would've thought this nugget came from the Book of Proverbs or something.  You should make it your signature quote!

Beware oversimplification

Such as:

"They hate our freedoms."

-W., Sept. 20, 2001

True

Einstein once said (I paraphrase): "As simple as possible, but not more so..."

But, while the sentence is terse, I am not convinced it is an oversimplifcation, especially when taken in the wider context of Bush's speech (which was a truly inspirational moment IMO BTW).  By "they" he means terrorist organizations, especially those responsible for organizing and executing massacres such as 9-11-01.  If you think for one moment that any totalitarian group/individual "likes" the freedoms of others, you are mistaken.  Now, I'll agree that it is a bit more complicated than that, as they hate our non-Islamic world view, our prosperity, our technological and military prowess, our materialism, our narcissicism, our hedonism, our moral decay, our lack of respect to God Almighty, as well as other aspects of our Western culture, but "freedoms" are certainly included in that list.

Well said...

However, I don't recall any instance of him demonstrating understanding of AQ beyond "they hate our freedom" line. I'll be happy to look at links to other speeches and interviews if someone else is aware of something I'm not. He's just not a details kind of guy. And I do think he veers toward oversimplification, and not just in this area.

As for this speech in particular, I'm willing to give him a pass since his goal was to buttress a nation rather than deliver a defense of a dissertation on international terrorism. Nevertheless, adults should be able to handle nuance, and his not seeking an opportunity to expound upon the motivations of AQ has done this nation a disservice.

understanding of AQ beyond

understanding of AQ beyond "they hate our freedom" line and Does one need to understand more than that if one relies on people that do?  I imagine he understands light years more than you.  He doesn't need to tell teh public about the intricacies of what makes AQ tic, he just needs to be able to siply explain it so teh public can grasp it.  We do the same in everyday life, simplify complex issues to short concie sentences.

Sort of like you are a troll.  That gets volumes of information across to the person I am speaking to in a short concise sentence. 

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Is the public really that stupid / disinterested?

We're going to war over this stuff. It is good for the president to spend more time explaining who we're up against and what they believe in the appropriate forum. To my knowledge he's never tried.

I agree "you are a troll" carries a lot of information. So does "you are a troglodyte," but both are just examples of name-calling and empty accusations if they aren't backed with proof.

Motivations of AQ? Here,

Motivations of AQ? Here, I'll help: World domination (including the destruction of Western Civilization) via the Muslim "faith", acquired by any means possible (terrorism and acts of pure midieval barbarianism), with the result of complete control of the population in accordance with the whims of religious zealots and against the rule of law.

And oh yeah, aided and abetted by complete fools who are afraid of their own shadows and who couldn't make a decision on behalf of Western civilization if their life depended upon it -- which it does, by the way.

Does that help?

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

blogonator

I suppose I don't strongly object to anyting you have just said, but I honestly don't know that there is anything here unique to this particular president.  Glad to hear you "cut him a pass" on that particular speech -- I think the majority of people at the time did find it inspirational.

Signature

I would, except I'd have to remember who I stole it from. (I steal from just about everyone, so it's hard to keep track!)

Joy Behar

I have to admit, why do we give notice to this woman ? It seems that literally EVERYTHING that is reported (about her) on this site is the ridiculous drivel that comes from her mouth. So can't we just assume she's a complete idiot, and talk (blog) about more important items?

I have to admit that I'm actually skipping over stories about her. I would say the same about Keith Olbermann, but at least he's fun to hammer. This woman is so far lost it's no fun...

 Just a thought.

Joy is anything but...

She's a load if there ever was one. Truly, a fun-sucker, except for the unhinged left.

The reason Madam Speaker does not want to go into the whole impeachment boondoggle is because it will LOSE SEATS instead of gain them in the election. Level-headed Democrats realize that the Bush presidency is in its last months and this is 'non issue'. Should the House seriously consider bringing up charges, the Republican candidates running will have a field day about the do-nothing Democrats.

Even Ms. Pelosi is smart enough to know that it's better to lose the Bush impeachment battle than the war for control of the House.

www.ArmchairEnergist...

Hate to break it to her (NOT!)...

but it seems she's poised to lose both.

Overhaul The Spew

This show is so lopsidedly left it should be called the "The Left". Elizabeth is a non-factor on the show, why even bother put her on there, its 3:1 liberals.

Dump Behar and Hasselbeck and bring in Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham, real conservative ladies.

Drill ANWAR

Now that I would pay to see,

Now that I would pay to see, even pay-for-view..

The sad part it would be like a PHD talking to a 8 year old.. 

 

Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.

Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.

Romney / Jendil  2012 (if,we survive)

AgentA... Now that would

AgentA...

Now that would be fair and balanced...and millions like me would love to tune in!

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

I guarentee the Behar is clueless as to Impeachmnet proceedure

She is probably completely unaware that it is exactly analogous to bringing an indictment against someone and having them stand trial for the alleged crimes.

Behar probably thinks of it as a way for "Congress" to fire the President because they don't like him.

Yes, it was done to Clinton and he amazingly was found not guilty in the Senate. However his crimes were sufficient for him to be disbarred in his home state. So there was apparently some meat there. (pardon the bad pun).

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.

Supreme Court too

If I recall he was booted from the SC as well.

Pelosi...there is no

Pelosi...there is no adequate evidence this administration committed a crime...

Hey Pelosi...you may want to tell Connors, Waxman and some others to quit wasting tax-payers money with all these useless hearings, I think there have been 45-60 now trying their darnedest to find anything to attempt to impeach the President and Cheney too...

Pelosi says she thought it would be divisive for the country...blah blah blah...she is a liar, she would gladly do it in a heartbeat if she could...she can't though, there is no there there.

I loved the Wawa 75% and then Elizabeth saying I think it's 91% now of the national poll rating of what people think of Congress and her leading job...

What she has done in Congress has been despicable, along with Whiner Harry Reid...who is still doing that as we speak...they both are holding up DRILLING, lowering our gas prices this way...no they want to increase taxes...lol! 

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Pelosi...there is no adequate evidence this administration

Thats the crux. If they had anything evidence that could entered in a court they would have done it already. They got a fishing expedition and the fish has got away. With both Nixon and Clinton they was a boat full of stuff that could have got them in trouble. With Nixon he got out the only way out he could and with Clinton there was reasonable doubt. With Bush there is more reasonable doubt than reason about everything and nothing criminal. Being dumb is not a crime. (that is only if you are left and you are against the right the it is a crime)

 Pelosi says she thought

 Pelosi says she thought it would be divisive for the country...blah blah blah...she is a liar, she would gladly do it in a heartbeat if she could...she can't though, there is no there there.

 

I for one am a bit suprized she hasent allowed it, considering the BS that come out of her mouth daily?

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

Pelosi is deluded.

Pelosi is deluded. Detached from reality. If she thinks that the people are 91% aginst Congress because they did not end the war, thats just insane. The popularity of the Congress is directly tied to the promises she made when she took that position. None have come to pass. Lower gas prices, improving economy, ect. ect. ect. And what happned? Gas prices went up, economy got worse...everything she touched went to $_it!

Liberals! There all nuts!

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

2 bitter women who hate men & their faded looks

The people who watch the view couldn;t even tell you what impeachment means, let alone, what constitutes an impeachable crime.

 

"They did it to Clinton" no honey, Monica did it to Clinton, Clinton lied under oath.

 

You might disagree strongly with Bush & Cheney, but they discharged the duties of the office legally, (except for open borders).

The libs hate Bush because he is actually faithful to his wife, they can't stand a moral person...(I mean he's not that bright, but he is moral)

 

 Apparently he it a bit

 

Apparently he is a bit smarter then a few of those morons in DC. Thank goodness!

edit: oh my?

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

The infantile liberal mentality exposed.

Joy Blowhard just wants a 'get even' shot at a Republican President. She represents all the shallow minded libs who think that Bill Clinton's lieing while under oath was 'just about private sex', so it was okay to do it. She and her ilk will never get it. In the mean time they want to draw blood to even things up.

Go Ahead, Pelosi the Hypocritical!

bring on the Articles of Impeachment. Bring it to court. Let the world hear the whole truth as the dirty laundry is aired!

And we'll find out what really goes on, how much the Democrats worked for the war, wanted the war, profitted from the war. And how much of the intel problems were Democrat-caused.

But you don't dare let the truth out, do you Pelosi? You'd rather hide behind remarks and innuendo, snide commentary and damaging backstabbing for your own political gains, because such things damage your opponent but require not one shred of proof. An impeachment trial, means facts, proof and paperwork be brought to light. 

And there's nothing the modern Liberal/Democrat hates more than *proof*.

"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".

"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same"

Agreed. Let it all come

Agreed. Let it all come out. Repeat it on the airwaves and the television stations every day.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

"It could be the answer to our age-old, philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' PLASTIC!"

  First off Mr. McCarthy,

  First off Mr. McCarthy, you should be getting hazardous duty pay. If not that, then at least time and a half for watching these lamebrains.

This Congress is the worst one in decades. And the bad part is, they still have the open checkbook we gave them. Someone should just slap Behar whenever she opens her yap.

  Since the Speaker of the

  Since the Speaker of the House would assume the Presidency upon removal of the President and Vice-President it might look a little like a coup and perhaps the American citizens would not really appreciate it.

There was a time in America

There was a time in America when this crap wouldn't be tolerated, when Joy Behar would be tossed out on her empty head for making statements like this. And there was a time when the networks would not have aired such imbecilic shows as "The View." Sadly, America's time in the sun appears to have passed.

Gee Joy Maybe They Didn't!

Hey stupid B!tch, Maybe it's because they didn't commit any crimes and even the idiot Pelosi knows it!

I apologize to others who may read this, but I can't take these imbeciles much longer...

Sad to think...

that there are people out there (cue clapping from brain dead audience) that take "Heckel and Jeckel" seriously.

"9 out of 10 doctors agree that flag burning is the number one killer of liberals."

 Heck,, I take them a lot

 Heck,, I take them a lot more serious then Behar and Pelosi,,, how in the heck do you think I have kept my sanity?

 

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

Are you kidding me!

"but the purpose of the surge was to pass the laws "

-- Nancy Pelosi BS Spin Artist of the House

WTF!!!

There wasn't a build up of lawyers in Iraq that i missed was there?

And I'm sitting here,

And I'm sitting here, wondering how in the hell she thinks a surge in troops from another nation's military is supposed to affect the ability of a Prime Minister/Iraqi government to pass laws (you know, a non-combat-related action), no matter where they are located.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

"It could be the answer to our age-old, philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' PLASTIC!"

Pelosi: "the purpose of the

Pelosi: "the purpose of the surge was to pass the laws to bring the reconciliation, so we can bring our troops home safely soon honorably and responsibly."

Wrong. The purpose of the surge was to WIN. This is a concept totally missing from Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, and the rest of the Congressional surrender monkeys.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Blowhard Behar

MsUnderestimated has the whole video at her site here.

First it was Hillary...now it's Pelosi....I now have PDS..

I can't watch Pelosi.....Hillary disappeared off the TV, and I thought I was in Recovery mode, but now Pelosi brings up the Same sick diarrea symptoms......I think I'm catching Pelosi Derangement Syndrome.

"She can't take it anymore, Captain" the warp drives are shot....

Aaauuuggghhhhh....No Mas..No Mas....

The Republican Revolution will not be Televised

Joy Behar

Now a self-important, second-rate, supposed comedienne is dictating policy to a self-important second-rate speaker of the house? What superficial, ill-informed idiots (the terms are interchangeable for either Pelosi or Behar). These people need to get a real job.