Keeping score on Nancy Pelosi.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Feb 2 2007, 11:31 PM) [snapback]384800[/snapback]</div>

I'm far from a Pelosi fan, but your question begs another. How can someone so clueless about national security reside in the White House? I mean really, especially after his exceptionally well qualified father. I think the history books are going to judge Bush I in a much more favorable light than perhaps he was seen during his term. Bush II will be recalled as pretty much an all around disaster. [disclaimer - I voted for Bush II first time around].

As for Pelosi, we'll see how she does. She's going to make enough real mistakes that I think we don't have to blow the AQ in Iraq thing out of proportion. Are they there? Sure. Is that our major problem there? No. Sunni insurgents and Shia militia and the lack of a leader who can unite. AQ or not, Iraq is a disaster - unfortunately of American making. Saddam was a brutal dictator but apparently he understood what it took to hold the place together. And I suspect AQ has only grown stronger in Iraq due to our mis-steps there. The military is doing what they can, but the strategy was botched by the politicos from the beginning.

 

Got a cite for that Pelosi quote?


And speaking of bonehead moves, who'd invade a country and not even know there were two factions who might get in a civil war. So, she probably can't do any worse than what we have.

GOP Leaders Fail Pop Test on the Difference between Sunnis and Shiites

In August 2006, Peter Galbraith, the former ambassador to Croatia, revealed that in the run-up to invading Iraq President Bush did not know that Muslims in the region were split into two sects, Shiites and Sunnis, and that these two sects had been in conflict for over a thousand years.

Now that the president has led United States forces into the middle of an escalating civil war between the two sects, you might think his Republican cohorts in Congress would have a basic knowledge of the issues that divide the two sides. If so, you would be wrong:

Take Representative Terry Everett, a seven-term Alabama Republican who is vice chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence.

Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite? I asked him a few weeks ago.

Mr. Everett responded with a low chuckle. He thought for a moment: One's in one location, another's in another location. No, to be honest with you, I don't know. I thought it was differences in their religion, different families or something?

 

This could be a long thread if we play tit for tat or real short if you realize:

As you get older in life you soon realize how true the above statement rings.

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Feb 3 2007, 11:39 AM) [snapback]384851[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, I believe if this country's going to make it (and the jury's still out on that as far as I can see), then we have to do better, and expect better.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Feb 3 2007, 11:39 AM) [snapback]384851[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, basically both just take as much of your money as they can and give it to someone else.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Feb 3 2007, 12:26 PM) [snapback]384876[/snapback]</div>

Probably so. Lesser of two evils and all that. But do you think we'd be in Iraq to the exclusion of everything else if anybody other than Bush had been in the White House?

 

Where's the problem now that we have "lowered expectations"? Or do we only lower them for one party. I believe Wallace was correct. You dem bashers will have to bash from here to kingdom come to come close to what your 'daddy' had led us to. Still, I think it may be good to 'keep them honest' by highlighting the dem's faux pas. But let's be very clear. There's a vast difference between murdering over 3000 of your own countrymen and a goof, but give the dems time, they'll do their best to TRY to equal junior in the journey to the bottom.

 

If that is a quote from her (which, seeing as there was no source given, I doubt), one has to ask when she said that.

Indeed, Al Qaeda were not in Iraq (did you know that there is more than one type of Muslim? And did you know that Saddam Hussein, a Ba'ath, was from a sect Al Qaeda, who are Sunni, couldn't stand?) before our illustrious president didn't give them a big ol' "Please please please come to Iraq! We'll give you cake!" invitation?

Yeah, they're certainly there now, and they gave a big Thank You note to the White House for letting them be there in the first place.

 

Newsbusters

The right is all over Pelosi. She's the new target du jour. What I'd like to know is....why not the same fervor and tenacity with a Republican lawmaker? Well, because Republicans get a wink and a walk and the Dems are Satan reincarnated.

If I recall, Al Queda wasn't in Iraq. Saddam was keeping them out. But once Saddam was gone...they came right in and took over.

Now....whose fault is that?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Feb 3 2007, 11:39 AM) [snapback]384851[/snapback]</div>

The Wallace statement was true up until the 1980s.
But the Republican party has changed drastically in the past 25 years.
Today some Republican elements have more to do with fascism and apocalyptic religion than they do with traditional American values.Eliminate those elements and you would have a valid argument.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Feb 3 2007, 12:32 PM) [snapback]384879[/snapback]</div>

No, I doubt it. It's a good reason to keep evangelicals out of the white house, too. We don't want someone with his finger on the button who looks forward to the end of the world. I'm surprised that WWIII didn't happen what with a religious freak in the white house and one who steered airplanes in to the WTC.

 

Man, I sooooo love it...

the Bush hata's have been/are sooo pissed off, it's great to see the angst ridden posts...

(probably the only reason I come to PC!) :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Feb 2 2007, 11:31 PM) [snapback]384800[/snapback]</div>

Strategically, its a mistake to engage in attacks on Speaker Pelosi this way. She is smart, appears reasoned and even keeled, and will be a sympathetic character to any who see Republican smears as attempts to deflect attention from the Republicans' own failings. Which is exactly what it is.

Let the American people judge her after the bumbling Republicans get out of the way, as they try to distance themselves from President Bush and the hard work that must be done. While a few Republicans stand by the President, most are in "cut and run" mode, including Senator Brownback. If the Iraqis are serious about their commitments in the new plan, and some progress is made, you'll see them all running back to support the President once again. Barring success in Iraq, Hillary will win the Presidency because she is the only Democrat candidate who has a more moderate position on the war but is perceived as opposing it. Even with success in Iraq, she is positioned to be the only real challenger because of her moderate stance; but it will be harder to convince an American public that is happy with the outcome to move toward the Democrats (my prediction is that the former situation of stasis or slightly worse experience in Iraq has a greater than 80% chance of happening by 2008).

 

The beauty of our system rests in our ability to change direction as a nation peacefully. While I am no fan of Pelosi or the current crop of democratic "leaders" if the will of the people is to retreat from Iraq and the War on Terror - so be it. If they believe the best offense is a good [homeland] defense so be it.

I personally stand behind the current management of the issues - even though i do not agree with how its being handled - and I am far from knowledgable to guess if a better job could have been expected to date.

I do know that for the last 5+ years we have been safe at home. I do know there are significant storms brewing in the Middle East with Iran and their nuclear program (i also agree with the current management of this situation and wish for greater economic sanctions and a continued lowering of oil prices by inducing Saudi Arabia et al to increase production hence decreasing the only source of financing it for Iran).

So I do not rest well knowing Pelosi is a heartbeat from the Oval Office. I do rest well in our long established ability of adapting to situations successfully over the past quarter millenium as a country.

My only worry is how many more innocent defenseless Americans will die on home soil before we unite on the greatest issue of our time - Islamic terrorism. There is a number out there - mine is about 3,000, others disagree with me - one thing that we probably all agree on is that the number should be ZERO more dead innocent Americans forever and forever. We only disagree as to how to maintain that zero figure.

 

Recent Harris Poll data:

Pelosi: 38 percent positive and 45 percent negative

and for good measure,

Harry Reid: 23 pos and 47 negative

and imagine what it will be next week. could it be that she will have worse figures than President Bush without the bashing he gets daily in the MSM?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 9 2007, 09:58 AM) [snapback]387395[/snapback]</div>

"cough"

err... gimme a break. That poll gets its "negative" rating by lumping the Only Fair and Poor ratings together. I doubt the people answering "Only Fair" considered it a negative rating. Look at the ratings for Poor if you want the real picture.

"How would you rate the job __________ are/is doing – excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"

Excellent Pretty Good Only Fair Poor Not Sure Positive* Negative**
President George W. Bush 7 25 22 45 1 32 67
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 6 31 28 17 17 38 45
Vice President Dick Cheney 6 23 22 45 4 29 67
Majority Leader Harry Reid 2 21 32 15 30 23 47

And the plane thing evidently bothered no one when Hastert was doing it: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/02/sw..._plane_fla.html
Former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) used a government plane on a routine basis to fly himself and his two top staffers at the time, Scott Palmer, the chief of staff, and Mike Stokke, the deputy COS, from the capital to an airport near his home in Illinois. Hastert had a rather unusual management system: His key aides almost always traveled with him when he returned to the District. It was convenient, since Palmer and Stokke roomed with Hastert in Washington, sharing his townhouse.

When Hastert was under pressure because of the exploding Mark Foley page scandal last October, he ordered an airlift at government expense to fly a lawmaker to Washington for the sole purpose of getting him to a press conference to help bail Hastert out of the jam.

 

berman, you keep echoing our president with this whole war on terror rant, and how we're "safer" now... Lets give some facts (according to publicly available DOS numbers):

Total world wide terrorist incidents prior to Bush's presidency (1968-2000): 12,530
Total world wide terrorist incidents during Bush's presidency (2001-2005): 12,530

Total world wide deaths due to terrorist activity prior to Bush's presidency (1968-2000): 10,614
Total world wide deaths due to terrorist activity during Bush's presidency (2001-2005): 21,154

Total world wide injuries due to terrorist activity prior to Bush's presidency (1968-2000): 21,839
Total world wide injuries due to terrorist activity during Bush's presidency (2001-2005): 19,412


Now tell me, how is this "war on terror" helping anything? in fact, last year saw a record high for the total number of reported world wide terrorist incidents - over 11,000. You're a big advocate for securing our nation against attack... How to we do that best - by inciting terrorist activity elsewhere, or by defending our borders and improving our intelligence gathering? Our "war on terror" has done a good job of two things: Giving the terrorists a great breading/practice ground in Iraq, and diverting attention from the fact that our local security still sucks. Need proof? how about that incident in Boston last week? Those signs had been up for several weeks in multiple cities around the nation before someone said "hey, whats that? maybe we should check it out..." and practically shut down the entire city.

The "significant storms" that are brewing don't have anything to do with a country pursuing a nuclear program. Even if they make a warhead, they don't have the delivery systems to get it here - they're much, much more likely to use it on their neighbors than on us. How does antagonizing another country improve our homeland security (Note, I am against their nuclear program, just for legitimate reasons)? Instead, the "significant storm" is the breading ground we created in Iraq. We have no way to clean it up, and it's going to spawn a whole generation of individuals who hate the US enough to become terrorists. Good job, Bush.

You say how many people have to die on home soil... How many people have to die in Iraq before we come to our senses? Yes, we lost a lot of people in 9/11, and we all mourn for them. But since we started Bush's War, we've lost just as many good Americans in Iraq, and we're no closer to a solution than we were on day 1. In fact, we've made the situation worse for America.

You say it should be zero dead Americans... i agree. But you want to send our soldiers over there to die (to create more dead Americans) in order to try to make things safer for those who stay behind. More sensible heads would rather focus efforts on actual homeland security and protecting the lives of every American than sending them overseas to be killed while operating as the biggest asset to terrorism in the world.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Feb 9 2007, 03:03 AM) [snapback]387356[/snapback]</div>

It is a bum rap. Even the White House says so:

White House defends Pelosi's access to Air Force transport plane