Did anyone really believe that Nancy Pelosi's recent whirlwind visit to Iraq was truly the "fact-finding" mission she billed it to be? I doubt it. But just in case there are some credulous folks out there, here's proof that rather than trying to find facts, Pelosi wanted to promote a political agenda.Have a look at this video clip from her January 26th visit. Exactly two minutes in, Pelosi, seated with Jack Murtha, is speaking with the young female Army soldier who is seen facing the camera. Here is the exchange:
Young Army Soldier: "I'm a 96 Bravo Intel Analyst. I work as a Sunni analyst in a fusion cell."
Nancy Pelosi: "Let's talk about the intelligence that got us into the war. That would be interesting to start with."
Think about it. If Pelosi were truly interested in "finding facts," she might have asked this young analyst about the strides we are making with Sunnis and the cooperation we're receiving against al-Qaeda in Iraq, about new cooperation we're receiving from Shia government leaders in rooting out death-squad leaders -- and what might happen to those efforts if we followed Mr. Murtha's recommendation and "redeployed" our folks to Okinawa.
Instead, with her eyes firmly fixed in the rear-view mirror and on domestic politics, Pelosi seeks to lure the analyst into a discussion of the intelligence from five years ago that led to the decision to go to war - something clearly outside the soldier's areas of responsibility or expertise.
This is not "fact-finding" - it's an attempt to use our brave soldiers as extras in Pelosi's political stunt film. Has anyone seen a MSM report on Pelosi's attempt to exploit the solider for political ends? Neither have I.
UPDATE - was Pelosi quizzing an enlisted HS grad? I was curious about the soldier that Pelosi wanted to engage in a discussion of the intelligence that led us into the war in Iraq. The soldier said she was a '96 Bravo' intel analyst. I Googled that, and found this list of qualifications for a '96B Intel Analyst,' quite possibly the position in question. You'll note that as per paragraph 10-221.b.(6), such analysts must be a "high school graduate or equivalent" prior to entry into active duty. Note also the requirement under 10-221.b.(4)(a) of an ASVAB score of 105. That's a test administered to enlisted people.
In other words, it seems possible that Pelosi was quizzing an enlisted person with a high school diploma about the highest possible level intelligence matters. Now, there are any number of brilliant HS grads, and surely many of them serve in our armed forces. But it seems very unlikely this intel analyst would ever have had access to the kind of highest-possible level intelligence materials to which Pelosi was referring. Of course that didn't matter at all to the Speaker. She was only concerned with scoring political points, not in "finding facts."
Mark was in Iraq in November. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What kind of a chickens**t q
January 27, 2007 - 10:26 ET by rimskyWhat kind of a chickens**t question is that? THIS is the LEADERSHIP we now have in Congress?
If the soldiers are given som
January 27, 2007 - 10:34 ET by EdhenryIf the soldiers are given some latitude during this "fact finding" mission. Pelosi and Murtha could be embarassed by some pretty strong comments.
(One good thing about Pelosi - I just went to my wife and told her I am glad to be with her).
what is the only point of tha
January 27, 2007 - 12:51 ET by buddycwhat is the only point of that discussion. the democrat point is "your service here is WASTED"
i knew she was a political zealot but she is stupid. i don't want to say it is treason but it is certainly meant to discourage the moral of our troops.
what do you do? this is what the liberal press wants. this is what probably 40% of this country wants. pathetic.
Like any typical liberal poli
January 27, 2007 - 15:22 ET by BDLike any typical liberal politician, they have NO idea even how to speak to a soldier. It was like they were viewing those 1CD troopers as an alien species....
One good thing was that it was nice to see an old hangout of mine again in the video background.
You're spot on, BD. They wa
January 27, 2007 - 19:01 ET by GalvanicYou're spot on, BD. They want to be photographed with military people, smiling and shaking hands, but they are very uncomfortable around them, like Johnny Carson when the zoo guy puts a boa constrictor over his shoulders.
Pelosi's question illlustrates her ignorance of the military, as the young soldier -- a 96B military intelligence specialist --- doesn't have the experience or access at her level to address the question.
Mr. Bella Pelosi and the 96B
January 27, 2007 - 19:13 ET by Eric TurnerI disagree. Access she probably has actually (review my post down below), now experience is another issue. This she definitely doesn't have!
But hey, it made a good sound bite for Mr. Bella Pelosi.
AKA: armyvet
Actually 60%
January 27, 2007 - 22:24 ET by emjem24Hey, buddy, I agree with you. However, I'd up that percentage to about 60% because about that many in the population voted in these pathetic losers. Now, they have the gall to say how much they "care" about the troops. Makes me sick.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
What do you expect from som
January 27, 2007 - 10:33 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsWhat do you expect from someone with terminal BDS?
DSG
Want your elected reps to know what you think? Go to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/, it's real easy.
Let's talk about the intell
January 27, 2007 - 10:39 ET by JerryLet's talk about the intelligence that got you into Congress. Oh, I'm sorry, there is NONE. No proof of intelligence. None. You lied about intelligence to get you into Congress, and now America is stuck in a political quagmire.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Pelosi's trip has two main objectives.
January 27, 2007 - 10:42 ET by acaiguanaPelosi's trip has two main objectives.
1. To CYA herself (read Democrat Leftist Kooks) in case the 'surge' works (and indications are that it would be working before it actually is happening - maybe Saddam's death had an impact). I'd like to see some stories out of Iraq about that.
2. To cherry-pick evidence to lend gravitas to her consistent and far-Left criticisms of Bush.
Those both pretty clearly highlight the purely political reasons behind her trip. It is sad that an American politician would drag this young man into a muck of a domestic political agenda that has no other root than the hunger for control of all three branches of government to further a radical agenda.
That agenda being known as tax and spend to buy votes to maintain such power. Democrats continue to demonstrate their disdain for the citizens of this country and it came out in this statement she made. It wasn't a question, it was setting an agenda topic.
When the Democrats can paint our effort in Iraq as opposed to our effort in Afghanistan as having nothing to do with either the War on Terror or the history of Iraq's behavior in the Middle East and particularly their ten year history of defiance of the peace terms imposed by the UN; then whine that Iraq had nothing and has nothing to do with Terrorism simply to discredit a Republican Administration, they think they win at home.
And in a sense, they do. Since we have no Republican voice clearly standing up to the constant misrepresentation of the situation, e.g. 'quagmire', 'civil-war', 'children's lives', 'can't win', 'already lost', and so forth, the Democrats win by default.
I read today that Bush's father complained about the overt hostility of the Press toward President Bush. Why should it be left for him to speak out so clearly?
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
I was going to type something
January 27, 2007 - 10:47 ET by Rndguy35I was going to type something similar to acaiguana's post. But why type when this is plenty sufficient.
Kudos to ACA.
"Give me liberty or give me death"
I agree. Nice post ACA. Tha
January 27, 2007 - 11:02 ET by rimskyI agree. Nice post ACA. Thanks.
Terrorism
January 27, 2007 - 14:22 ET by BBallleaperThe main problem with the Iraq / Afghanistan wars is that they're not wars. Unfortunately for our troops you can't liberate 50 million people and then bomb the hell out of them ala Dresden in an attempt to kill the enemy. In WWII it was easy to assume that German civilians were either as guilty as their leaders or merely represented necessary casualties of war. Here, we can't. Trying to decide who is a terrorist and who is just an average guy trying to live a decent life is impossible.
Yes, we need to stabilize these countries. Yes, we need to turn the troops loose to kill and break things. But the idea that terrorism will end with stabilization is crazy. These are mutants who live in the 12th century, born and bred to violence, and they will not stop until they destroy us.
Americans who think everything will be better 6 months from now because of a surge should think again. We will need to be in Iraq protecting the oil and and Israel forever. And I support that.
ACA,I agree, it should be man
January 27, 2007 - 15:04 ET by Dave RACA,
I agree, it should be many, many more people speaking out on the President's behalf other than his father. It has been a pretty rare occurance for the Bush people, and that inludes Tony Snow, to actively counter much of the critisism the DimLibs and their MSM dog-washers have flung at GWB. It seems as if they just ignore it all and go on about their business. One glaring example was when WMDs were found in Iraq, the Bush team said almost nothing about it.
I know there are some who feel one should not respond to one's critics, as it shows a lack of class, but I believe the silence of the Bush crowd has done the President a great deal of harm in the eyes of the American public.
I remember Reagan was loath to respond to his critics at times, but there were times when he would get right in their faces and call them out on it, which would send many of them running for the tall grass. I wish Mr Bush would do the same sometimes, but it seems that by the time he gets around to doing it, the momentum is already going against him.
A democrat on a fact finding
January 27, 2007 - 10:57 ET by Evinrude55A democrat on a fact finding mission? They don't want the facts, they want spin material. God forbid they actually get a clue!
Unfortunately, most of the Re
January 27, 2007 - 11:04 ET by King of the BritonsUnfortunately, most of the Republicans are also POLITICIANS. They do not want to stand up and challenge this media darling in case the MSM, Democrats, and moonbats are successful in getting us to pull out before the job is done. Because if they challenge her now and we pull out before we are done, the MSM will use this as the final nail in their political coffin come '08. It is disgusting that we have only a very few courageous and honorable politicians to point out what Nancy is doing. I believe the Democrats to be nothing more than politically minded power whores, but I am sad to report, that most Republicans are too. How else can you explain the Republicans coming out to nuke the Dems on their non-binding resolution, their constant defeatist support of the enemy, and their lying about there being no plan?
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
Shameful
January 27, 2007 - 11:08 ET by JimboUnfortunately this country as spiraled down into a state where the MSM tells a significant portion of the American public what to believe. It remains for those capable of independent thought to sift through the relentless BS fed by the MSM to get a glimpse of reality.
Mark’s post depicts Nancy’s true objectives, plain as day. The MSM will have no part of advancing the truth in this matter or any other that may aid in victory in Iraq or for the President’s administration.
And every time I hear Nancy and her band of surrender monkeys say that they support the troops, I literally become sick to my stomach. They don’t. They don’t give a damn about our troops. In fact, I suspect they wish for heavier American casualties to assist in justifying their surrender policy. How dare you, Madam Speaker, tell our brave men and women that you support them but that you refuse to send them the reinforcements they need to protect themselves and to secure victory. The 150,000 ultra liberals from your congressional district don’t trump the 60,000,000 people from across the country that voted the President into his second term. I pray that you wake up one day and realize how shameful of a human being you are.
God Bless President Bush and the mean and women of the armed forces.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Being from Pelosi's area, Jimbo, don't hold your breath.
January 27, 2007 - 11:10 ET by acaiguanaBeing from Pelosi's area, Jimbo, don't hold your breath.
These people are primarily spoiled rich folks and their brats living on trust fund pensions, clamoring about one of the dirtiest cities in the Universe where nearly everything run by government is broken beyond repair.
And she is 'speaker' of the House.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
And the Democrats blame Presi
January 27, 2007 - 11:18 ET by JimboAnd the Democrats blame President Bush for “alienating” the country from the rest of the world. The fact that we have been mostly alienated since 1776 aside, how does the Madam Speaker think the world views us when half the population relentlessly tries to tear down our Commander in Chief, essentially supporting the position of the enemy? I suspect the thought has never occurred to her, and if it has, she cares as much about that as she does our troops.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Well, Jimbo, I haven't watched this video, but I would say this.
January 27, 2007 - 11:28 ET by acaiguanaWell, Jimbo, I haven't watched this video, but I would say this.
The young soldier should have looked her in the eye and said, "With all due respect, I don't give a sh** about your political agenda. The quality or reliability of intelligence from years ago has literally nothing to do with my work here. I'm trying to do a job here and now. Fer Chrissake."
This is an old trick of the Democrats and radical anti-war Liberals. Find a young soldier, like they could in Vietnam, who is only trying to get through his tour, has no real understanding of why he is in a war or in the military (draft anyone?), and get him to mumble some innanity about the command he has found his life to be under.
Doesn't work in today's Army.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
War Rally
January 27, 2007 - 11:34 ET by JimboAgreed.
The liberals learned only one thing from Viet Nam. Gotta say “We support the troops!” at every opportunity. Unfortunately, that’s the only thing they learned. The forgot the lessons on restrained warfare, price of surrender, and what happens when congress doesn’t support the military (saying you do sure doesn’t make it so), etc.
I saw on the news this morning that there is a big anti war rally planned in DC today. The people already there that they were interviewing looked to be in their late 50’s early 60’s. There is no doubt in my mind that these are the very same people who protested the Viet Nam war.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
A lot of these people have nothing to show for their activism.
January 27, 2007 - 11:42 ET by acaiguanaA lot of these people have nothing to show for their activism.
They are in their fifties and early sixties. They have been Liberal and activists all of their lives. They live in lower middle class economic status and justify it by claiming to be 'natural'. They may be part of the body politic manipulated and used by the John Kerry types who capitapulted to fame on their backs. They are a sad and worn out bunch. And Stalinism is Kaput. Sad.
It was my experience and later proved through subsequent Univesity hard time study of revolutionary theory and Vietnam (as well as China, etc.) that most of the Vietnam veterans today had no real understanding of why or what they were being asked to do. They had no perspective at all.
Now, to get that perspective from the botched and popularist anlaysis over the past 40 years of the Vietnam war, would not be the healthiest thing for their peace of mind. I am not criticising the veterans' experiences of course, I'm just stating a reality.
So, if the Leftists continue to paint Vietnam in the view that the US was the 'bad' guy and we deserved to lose and everything that happened was really our fault; then it is rather difficult to get a word in edgewise.
The reason in my mind that Iraq is definately not comparable to Vietnam is the quality of the soldier. Not the quality of the politician.
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
Today's Soldiers
January 27, 2007 - 11:53 ET by JimboThe reason in my mind that Iraq is definately not comparable to Vietnam is the quality of the soldier. Not the quality of the politician.
Great point. I think the biggest contributing factor to that realits is that everyone there volunteered. Speaking for myself, I would think that by volunteering, I would have at least a fundamental understanding of why and what I was being asked to do. I presume that is the case with most who join today. That goes to your other point about soldiers 40 years ago who were drafted, said “go here”, and “do that”, and “where the hell is Viet Nam?
It’s ashame that all that talent, ability, drive, and desire in today’s military is being kneecapped by the liberal culture once again.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Exactly. With a draft, you
January 27, 2007 - 12:43 ET by JerryExactly. With a draft, you are FORCING whiny liberal she-males into the ranks along with the patriots, which led to a dis-jointed military effort and a surge of political unrest at home. This is why democrats kept threatening to re-implement the draft (while blaming it on Bush). They wanted to fan the fires of anti-war, anti-military, anti-American fever in the United States.
Democrats don't care about war. They only use it as a vehicle for scoring political points. When a democrat is in charge, any war for any reason is palatable. When a republican is in charge, there is no justification for war.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Yes, I'd feel sorry for the a
January 27, 2007 - 13:24 ET by Mica the MagnificentYes, I'd feel sorry for the aging hippies if they still weren't so destructive to the country.
All those graying ponytails, all those pet rocks gathering dust next to their moth-eaten earth-shoes, the fading posters of Mao, the dog-earred collection of Alan Ginsbergs' writings, the ashes of burned bras in between the cellophone mounted on the wall, the little ceramic 'clenched fist in different colors' collections on the cardboard shelf, the 17 kids they never met because they made love, not war, .. Sad, sad.
Flower power has died, re-seeded, and came back as a weed.- From the book, My greatest moment in my life was rolling around in the mud at Woodstock.
"The young soldier sho
January 27, 2007 - 13:27 ET by Jerry"The young soldier should have looked her in the eye and said, "With all
due respect, I don't give a sh** about your political agenda..."
Aca, I would have paid good money to see that!
This response would have also been nice:
"I'm sorry Mz Pelosi, but it's your job to analyze the intelligence reports and make the decision of when and where to prosecute a war. It's my job to prosecute that war, and I would be very appreciative if you and your party would not work so hard to undermine what the soldiers here are trying to accomplish. You are putting our mission in jeopardy, you are putting our very lives in jeopardy. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to get back to work for the American people."
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
My culpa - ACA
January 27, 2007 - 14:00 ET by acaiguanaMy culpa - ACA
One of these days, I'm gonna learn how to read, spell and type at the same time. The young soldier was a woman and I called her a man. 'Catipulted' is spelled right here and not in my post.
:-)
More coffee anyone?
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
Well said, Jimbo.
January 27, 2007 - 11:15 ET by rimskyWell said, Jimbo.
Isn't this sort of like a p
January 27, 2007 - 11:23 ET by Tom1969caIsn't this sort of like a politician asking a Marine who is about to hit the beach on Iwo Jima (that was in April 1945, for those of you in Rio Linda) whether he thought FDR should have had advance knowledge of "12/7"?
~~~
VOTE DEMOCRAT!
(It's easier than thinking)
Pelosi
January 27, 2007 - 12:59 ET by Mulligan22She's not interested in finding any facts. What mind she has is closed tight. She's a fool with power. Arguing about how the war started is so absolutely stupid at this point it's a total waste of time. What possible purpose does it serve? Zero.
If that ol bat was on the Titanic her main concern would be how cold the iceburg was.
The Iceberg
January 28, 2007 - 07:24 ET by JimboShe’d only be concerned about how big the iceberg was if it helped her to prove that it was President Bush’s fault!
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Why didn't she just bring Sen Rockefeller along for that?
January 27, 2007 - 13:12 ET by blackrain4xmas"There is unmistakable
evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons
and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also
should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
(then head of the Sen Intel Com and responsible for making sure the intel was the best possible)
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/01/26/put-em-up-or-shut-up/
intuition
January 27, 2007 - 13:13 ET by misterbillintuition --I discussed with my wife last night that my intuition tells me that Ms Pelosi is in a position so far over her head that it won't be realized until the US goes down in flames. Pardon my ego. I am very good at these intuitions. She is more wrapped up in that she is the first "woman" Speaker than she is in doing the job. For God's sake, I have worked around and for totally competent women for years. I have also worked with and for incompetent women (as well as men).
Ms Pelosi, Get over the female issue and get to work! Undo the facelifts so you stop blinking. I watch O'Reilly about twice a week and he has some lady studying body language. I wish she would study Ms Pelosi with Maliki. But, far more important, I wish she would study Maliki's body language response to Pelosi.
PS
January 27, 2007 - 13:16 ET by misterbillPS Margaret Thatcher was a person for her time. Not a woman for her time, a person. She knew her job, she did it well and she took no guff. Pelosi will never reach those heights.
I was a 96B for 21 years! Kudos to the girl!
January 27, 2007 - 13:15 ET by Eric TurnerMark,
I was a 96B for 21 years. I can tell you that analysts in her position do actually have access to just about every single intelligence product out there courtesy of the SIPRNET (Secure Internet Protocol Router Network) and JWICS (Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System) (think: SIPRNET = SECRET Internet and JWICS = TS/SI/TK/H/G Internet). These two systems are just like the NIPRNET (regular internet) and access the databases of all the various national intelligence agencies. Unified commands, and military units will place data on it as well. They all have a homepage presence on the systems. However, the necessity for her to actually access those classified policy papers would be minimial. So unless she was just reading them to bone up on background material for the whole situation, she probably wouldn't. A good analyst would though. Heck, if I had been her supervisor I would have made reading some of that stuff mandatory. Additionally, she's a Specialist. She's a worker-bee. Boss man comes in and tells her what to do. "Hey SPC Smith, today we're gonna be focusing on the Sunni activity in such-and-such an area. We gotta brief so-and-so and so I need you to run down these figures." or "Hey SPC Smith, you're gonna be plotting the board today with significant Sunni activity." etc.
The only things she would not have access to are Special Access Programs (SAPs). But even then, if she's been read on to one or more of those, she'd have access to those papers too. And rank is not involved when it comes to being read-on to SAPs or other intelligence. It's all about what position you're filling and what your duties are.
I've met some dumb intel analysts through that time. But I can bet they picked their best ones to meet with these congressmen/women. That's what we always did. You never wanted to be embarassed, so you'd pick your best ones to brief them or answer questions by them. I'd be real interested in knowing what was said on the edited footage.
Bottom line? If I wanted to find anything on the SIPRNET or JWICS I could find it given the right keywords, boolean query, etc through specialized search queries. I could find messages that are simply raw information, not evaluated intelligence from anywhere in the world. The intelligence community has gone to a format where it's a "push-down" philosophy. In otherwords, make everything available to the consumer (field units) possible and they can make up their own minds what they need and don't need. Now there are inherent security risks in this philosophy, but that's for another day.
And that concludes my short briefing if there are no questions at this time.
AKA: armyvet
From one renrut to another, y
January 27, 2007 - 13:52 ET by JayTeeFrom one renrut to another, your Intel is revealing to us un-informed observers. I was "Briefly" watching ABC last night (I think it was ABC) and they actually interviewed a Soldier on the ground, in Iraq, and he was griping about saying you support the Soldiers but not supporting their missions. He was not too happy with the "resolution" (didn't mention it specifically) but it was part of the media intro before the "Interview" . What he said, would make a good posting here.
One wonders what the heck got into the Media...other than it was a Friday nite and no one was watching......Then I hear there is an anti-war group in DC today. Radio said 50 to 100 thousand......that's a big spread.
We need a million Pro-war / Pro-American military demonstration to counter the Idiots who are there today.......Tic for Tac. I'm ready to show up.
Good to meet another all-sour
January 27, 2007 - 15:26 ET by BDGood to meet another all-sourcer.
Huachuca is beautiful this year with our recent snowfall.
BD, you a bravo? And at Hua
January 27, 2007 - 15:30 ET by Eric TurnerBD, you a bravo? And at Huachuca? I'm so glad I never have to go there again! It is indeed nice to see another all-sourcer! Whatcha doin there? Bet we know some peoples.
AKA: armyvet
Naaw, I am a 35D / 35E type.
January 27, 2007 - 16:05 ET by BDNaaw, I am a 35D / 35E type. Coming up on 22 years of service.
Hey, Huachuca is the nicest place the army ever assigned me. (I have even bought a house to retire in in a couple of years if all goes well.)
I bet we know lots of folks. I was on the platform here for a couple of years in the 90's.
Pelosi: "Let's talk about the intelligence.."
January 27, 2007 - 13:47 ET by Gary HallPelosi: "Let's talk about the intelligence that got us into the war. That would be interesting to start with."
OKee doe Kee - let us do that:
July 22, 2003 - Larry King Live
Bill Clinton - I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks.........of biological and chemical weapons. ...... And what I think -- again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what's the best way to build Iraq as a democracy? How is the president going to do that and deal with continuing problems in Afghanistan and North Korea?
We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq. We can have honest disagreements about where we go from here, and we have space now to discuss that in what I hope will be a nonpartisan and open way.
November 26, 1997, The Washington Times
Cohen details threats posed by Baghdad
.......Iraq has secretly stockpiled enough deadly poison gas to kill everyone on Earth despite nearly seven years of international inspections, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen said yesterday
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin stated on November 12, 2002, "The security of the United States is under threat from people like Saddam Hussein who are capable of using chemical and biological weapons."
Russert, Tim - Meet the Press, October 10, 2004,
RUSSERT: “I think what confuses people, Senator, is that there seems to be a difference in rhetoric and emphasis. Back in October of 2002, you voted to authorize the country to go to war. In fact, you said this about Saddam: ‘I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.’ ‘The most serious and imminent threat to our country.’ And you underscored it by saying this:”
EDWARDS (on video): “I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.”
RUSSERT: “Most serious and imminent threat. Were you just dead wrong?”
EDWARDS: “No, I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that’s why we stand behind our vote on the resolution.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 10/10/04)
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
Albright Defends U.S. ----- ''A few dozen hecklers'' will not deter the United States from its mission in Iraq, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said today.
"What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" Sec. Madeline Albright
Well said Gary H. Your evid
January 27, 2007 - 14:01 ET by JayTeeWell said Gary H.
Your evidence of quotes is far to voluminous for the drive by Media to cover. It would NOT fit into a 60 minutes TV special, it would put far too many democrats on the record of being pro-war, anti-Terrorists.
You need to 'Drive by" this post, and condense it down into some type of short Liberal Soundbite.........How about Quoting Kerry's last "stuck in Iraq" speech, and then follow that by stating "Kerry and Clinton are in agreement".....without mentioning you just represented "back to back" journalistic comments, that really were 6 years apart. Sorta like Michael Moore does.
JayTee, speaking of Moore
January 27, 2007 - 16:11 ET by Gary HallJayTee, speaking of Moore.
Even Michael Moore, at times, has quite a bit more sense of the world than does the MSM, and their very gullible viewers (who grow up and turn into voters).
May 1, 2001
Why Don't We All Just Cut the Crap Right Now
Dear friends,
Well, 101 days into the Junta and the fear mongers are having a heyday, aren't they? Even good liberals and Democrats have joined in the mantra. To listen to them, you'd think George W. Bush had opened the gates of hell and unleashed the legions of Satan upon the American people.
These good people actually believe Junior has put the arsenic back in the water, given the go-ahead to spew massive CO2 emissions into the air, torn up our national forests, and raped the Alaskan wilderness. With all the fury that has been whipped up, I'm sure any minute we'll also hear that Baby Face Bush recently held up a 7-11 in Denver, and now plans to release bubonic plague into the atmosphere over Ohio.
Now, don't get me wrong. There's no doubt that this illegal squatter in the Oval Office is not to be trusted farther than you can throw Katherine Harris. But, please, let's cut the crap and tell the truth: George W. Bush has done little more than CONTINUE the policies of the last eight years of the Clinton/Gore administration. As hard as that is for many to swallow, that is the truth -- and the sooner you stop the scare campaign, the sooner we'll be able to fight Bush in a way that will stop him for good.
For eight long years, Clinton/Gore resisted all efforts and recommendations to reduce the carbon dioxide in the air and the arsenic in the water. Just last October, Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle and sixteen other Democrats successfully led the way to STOP any reduction of arsenic in the water. Why? Because Clinton and the Democrats were beholden to the very industries who had financed their campaigns --- and who were responsible for high levels of arsenic in the water.
On top of that, Clinton/Gore became the first administration in twenty years NOT to demand higher fuel efficiency standards from Detroit. Millions of barrels of oil that did not need to be refined and spewed out into our air were guzzled unnecessarily. It wasn't that way under Reagan. His administration ordered that cars had to get more miles per gallon. Under Bush I, the standards were made even stricter. Under Clinton -- zip. Nothing. How many more people will die from cancer, how much faster will global warming be sped up thanks to Bill and Al being in cahoots with one of their chief patrons, the top lobbyist for the Big 3 auto companies -- Mr. Andrew Card, currently the chief of staff for the man occupying the federal land at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Am I the only one who remembers one of the most lavish inaugural parties thrown for Clinton after his election? The host: General Motors and its man-about-town in DC, Andrew Card.
Yes, there is a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats say one thing ("Save the planet!"), and then do another, quietly and behind the scenes with all the bastards who make this world a dirtier place. The Republicans just come right out and give the bastards a corner office in the West Wing. In some ways, maybe it's better we see the evil out in the open rather than covered up in a liberal sheep's clothing that seems to fool a lot of people.
Gary, I know your intent here
January 30, 2007 - 22:55 ET by Chicago RepublicanGary, I know your intent here, however, I thank you for reminding me what an utter mouth breathing, human brainfart this guy is.
Why go on fact finding miss
January 27, 2007 - 16:06 ET by gueinWhy go on fact finding mission when you mind is already made up? What a joke.
Isn't the question Pelosi a
January 27, 2007 - 16:31 ET by Tom1969caIsn't the question Pelosi asked one that (asinine as it is) could have been asked from her office in DC? I thought the idea of travelling to Iraq was to find out "how things really are" (though even that is likely "managed" by the Dems), not to fly halfway around the world at taxpayer expense to ask a soldier who is busy defending idiots like Pelosi something that (a) she could pick up the phone and ask someone, and (b) she already "knows" the answer to (or at least she knows what answer she wants.)
~~~
VOTE DEMOCRAT!
(It's easier than thinking)
I am so mad at Pelosi about t
January 27, 2007 - 17:27 ET by watchful eyesI am so mad at Pelosi about the disrespect she showed this courageous gal! I tried to both call and email her and found I can't unless I am a "constituent". I live 30 miles away and cannot send her my opinion even though she is the Speaker of the House running around "representing" the USA. Both the phone and email require my address and ditches me when it isn't in her district. What crap!
Wow. That is crap. So the
January 27, 2007 - 17:41 ET by JimboWow. That is crap. So the only feedback she gets is from her own Congressional district, which is among the most liberal in the country. Just great. And she is supposed to be representing the "country"??
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
I've found that many congress
January 27, 2007 - 17:45 ET by Eric TurnerI've found that many congressmen and senators are like that. Particularly those who must receive a lot of "hate email"
AKA: armyvet
Nancy Pelosi: "Let's talk about the intelligence that got us int
January 27, 2007 - 19:09 ET by misterbillNancy Pelosi: "Let's talk about the intelligence that got us into the war. That would be interesting to start with."
Ma'am, with all due respect, you are not equipped to be involved.
Young Army Soldier: "I'm a 96 Bravo Intel Analyst. I work as a Sunni analyst in a fusion cell."
Nancy--"Oh fusion, one of my favorite colors. It goes with my eyes. It reduces blinking"." And by the way. I am happy that you are working in the daylight.
The Demoralization Continues
January 27, 2007 - 22:21 ET by emjem24Man, this woman stoops to new lows. Now asking a soldier about the reasons we went to war? What next, asking al-Maliki what kind of suits he'd recommend for her husband?
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
Pelosi : "Lets talk abou
January 30, 2007 - 22:50 ET by Chicago RepublicanPelosi : "Lets talk about the intelligence that got us into this war."
Soldier: "Yes maam, you mean the same intelligence that lead you to say this before the 2002 elections - 'Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there is no question about that'."??