Wednesday, November 08, 2006

The Speaker speaks

Nancy Pelosi spoke on PBS today on the subject of Iraq. Here's a quote that may provide a window into her thinking.

"I mean, the point is, is that our presence in Iraq, as viewed by the Iraqis and by others in the region, as an occupation is not making America safer. ... So what is being accomplished by our being there? A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq ... The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by 'victory'?"

67 Comments:

Blogger CatoRenasci said...

How can anyone be surprised. Cut and run Democrats always advocate surrender to the enemy. Well, the American people voted for the Democrats to take over, and they'll lose the war for us doublequick.

11/08/2006 07:34:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

wretchard quoted Grandma:

So what is being accomplished by our being there? A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq

I'll settle for a "responsible redeployment" outside of Baghdad, perhaps in Kurdistan to interdict Iranian trans-shipments to Syria. Let the Iraqi Army "stand up", and if they wobble, fine, let them duke it out but get our boys out of the line of fire.

11/08/2006 07:34:00 PM  
Blogger Tim said...

Indeed. The speaker -- intelligence is elusive. Intelligence is subjective. Does she know what I mean by 'the speaker is an idiot'?

11/08/2006 07:40:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

Nancy Pelosi said if the Dems won the House, "the gavel would be in the hands of the children" and some say this is truly prescient. Others say this is a fortunate outcome. One-party rule leads to the same place as that "bridge to nowhere", so it is never good, no matter which team is up.

11/08/2006 07:41:00 PM  
Blogger Tony said...

Can you spell "No shit, Sherlock"?

11/08/2006 08:19:00 PM  
Blogger Asher Abrams said...

Here's a quote that may provide a window into her thinking.

Thinking?

11/08/2006 08:39:00 PM  
Blogger talnik said...

Huh?

11/08/2006 08:59:00 PM  
Blogger Reocon said...

As King Lear's Fool showed, sometimes even idiots can drop wise words. What are the conditions for victory in Iraq? Our liberalizing democratic strategy has handed power over to a coalition of Shiite Revolutionary Islamists: SCIRI/Dawa/and the loathsome Sadr. That's not victory, that's a defeat at the hands of elected Islamofascists. So, what constitutes victory?

Everyone from the C-in-C on down agrees we need a change in strategy, but the very devil is in the details. To apply real-world referents to the political calculus in Iraq is a grim exercise, for there is no sizable liberal mass of Iraqi friends for us to turn power over to. Maliki should have proved that, even to the dense. What we have in Iraq is a civil war between two of our enemies. Any suggestions? Anyone want to show they're smarter than Comrade Pelosi and define what victory really means for us in Iraq?

11/08/2006 09:06:00 PM  
Blogger Bill said...

“Victory is subjective. What does he mean by 'victory'?" - Nancy

Victory is destroying the enemy's will to resist. This is going to be a fun two years!

11/08/2006 09:38:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

bill's definition of victory is the true one, and the one we had going our way for a brief time after OIF and before the 04 Dem primaries raised an anti-war movement.

What started as a political calculation for a few careerist pols became in a couple short years the jihad's fondest dream.

Go get 'em, Dems, you geniuses you.

Get us outta the ME (and away from OPEC), get that free trade shut down, get that oil up to $200/bbl, turn China hostile, and parlay that genius slogan-think into a nice big monster-ass capital W World War, against the entire non-English-speaking world, within a decade or so!

Peace Train, we're all aboard, and picking up speed now, boys and girls!

11/08/2006 10:13:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Well Larsen, the meaning of big W is subjective as well:
Henceforth it will NOT refer to Walmart.
C4 is in Heaven.
Big W get's it's comeuppance.

11/08/2006 10:34:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Maybe it's time for the blogosphere to make more widely known that this woman of the people is perhaps the richest person in Congress:
Her hubby has a nice Winery in NorCal running on non-union labor, thank you.

11/08/2006 10:38:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

(of course they are ALL documented)
The meaning of "valid documents" being subjective as well.

11/08/2006 10:40:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

Oh, posh and bother, we're ALL subjectivians now.

11/08/2006 10:48:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Victory was not subjective to these Moderate Muslims:
---
Beheaded Christian girls were Ramadan 'trophies'

THREE Christian high school girls were beheaded as a Ramadan "trophy" by Indonesian militants who conceived the idea after a visit to Philippines jihadists, a court heard yesterday.

11/08/2006 10:50:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I guess you could say beheadings are subjective, and certainly the subjects will not disagree.

11/08/2006 10:51:00 PM  
Blogger Buddy Larsen said...

oh, jeez, when I hear stuff like that--it's a good thing I don't have the Red Button handy.

11/08/2006 10:54:00 PM  
Blogger Towering Barbarian said...

"One-party rule leads to the same place as that "bridge to nowhere", so it is never good, no matter which team is up."

Woman_catholic,
That's funny. Back in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan took the Presidency from Jimmy Carter while the Democrats still held the House and the Senate both liberals and journalists called that state of divided rule "Gridlock" and clearly considered it A Bad Thing. Does this mean you would classify the liberals and journalists of that day as either mistaken or deceptive and if so why? o_O

For that matter, does this mean that FDR being President at a time when the Democrats held both Houses is something you would have opposed? If Hillary Clinton became President in 2008 would you expect the Democrats to resign their seats in Congress so as to avoid "one party rule" or would that somehow be different? O_o

Inquiring minds would like to know. @_@

11/08/2006 11:28:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

The douty Grandmother in Chief is worth $55 Million!
---
Nancy Pelosi: Caviar commie
As I have reported previously in this space, Pelosi, the winner of the 2003 Cesar Chavez award from the United Farm Workers, hires only non-union workers on her $25 million Napa Valley vineyard.
Maybe this explains her firm opposition to any efforts to enhance border security and the flow of illegal cheap labor into the country from Mexico, speculates Investor's Business Daily.

According to Peter Schweizer's account in "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)," the luxury resort and restaurants she partly owns are also strictly non-union.
The exclusive country club she partly owns failed to comply with existing environmental regulations for the past eight years – including a failure to protect endangered species.
Those rules are for mere mortals, not the caviar Comintern.
---
As WND has reported, Pelosi is a long-time member of the "Progressive Caucus" – or, as I call it, the Congressional Red Army Caucus.

In fact, she has even served on the executive committee of the socialist-leaning Progressive Caucus, a bloc of about 60 votes or nearly 30 percent of the minority vote in the lower chamber.

Until 1999, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America. Following an expose of the link between the two organizations in WND, the Progressive Caucus established its own website under the auspices of Congress. Another officer of the Progressive Caucus, and one of its guiding lights, is avowed socialist Rep. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent.

The Democratic Socialists of America's chief organizing stated goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to "socialism" in the eyes of most Americans.

Another song removed after WorldNetDaily's expose was "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" The lyrics went: "Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie."
In the last six years, the Progressive Caucus has been careful to moderate its image for mainstream consumption.

11/09/2006 01:19:00 AM  
Blogger linearthinker said...

Commentary on the '06 midterms written in 1919.

...Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

11/09/2006 02:00:00 AM  
Blogger What is "Occupation" said...

deep breath....

count to ten.

Watch what what china, syria, palestinians, nokor, iran, sudan, somolia, cuba, venezuela does.

No need to worry about ole nancy in JANUARY, we have MONTHS of the nutjobs around the world to change the agenda.

And trust me, they will...

11/09/2006 05:15:00 AM  
Blogger RWE said...

Someone should have said to Pelosi: "Well, then there is no difference between what happened on Tuesday night than what happened in 1994, is there? So go back to Frisco, Pelo, we have redefined victory and you lost."

11/09/2006 05:24:00 AM  
Blogger Reocon said...

Bill said...

Victory is destroying the enemy's will to resist.

Bill, does that mean "destroying the will" of the Sadr/Badr/Maliki coalition that is democratically elected -- that is the will of the "government" with which we've been working with for so long? Sloganeering is easily, strategy is hard, especially for a Iraq war as horribly misguided as this one. I'm not hearing many ideas for what victory entails in Iraq.

11/09/2006 05:59:00 AM  
Blogger Goesh said...

I wouldn't want to be a Sunni about now in Iraq - got no majority, got no oil, the Americans are going to leave, Iran is well established and most helpful in the camp of the Shias. I wonder how thoroughly al jazeera will cover the ethnic cleansing once we cut and run? Will we get any beheading videos of Sunnis under the knife after all those years of being saddams favorite people and having all the good jobs? Will MSM get a pass like they did when we cut and ran from Viet Nam? Will the conservative media cave in and black out the atrocities that will follow our departure? I predict the Shias will simply vote once we are gone and decide to become part of Iran. Yup, just extend the borders. Simple really. Who will stop them? the UN security council? Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? How much oil is down there in Shiaville anyway? Can't you just see some Iranian military bases on the border with Jordan?

11/09/2006 06:09:00 AM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

Woman_catholic,
That's funny. Back in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan took the Presidency from Jimmy Carter while the Democrats still held the House and the Senate both liberals and journalists called that state of divided rule "Gridlock" and clearly considered it A Bad Thing. Does this mean you would classify the liberals and journalists of that day as either mistaken or deceptive and if so why?


"That government is best which governs least." -- Thomas Paine. Gridlock is the friend of limited government, especially now after the Republican party became the undisputed champion of Big Government and broke the bank. Bush is about to rediscover his long-lost veto pen, which he wielded only once to squash funding embryonic cell research.

11/09/2006 06:46:00 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

I wouldn't want to be a Sunni about now in Iraq

True, but fear not - you can bet that when we pull out, we will allow the emigration of several million Iraqis to the US, in order not to leave behind those we supported. Just like with the Vietnamese "boat people", the Cambodian Hmong, and the Somalis.

11/09/2006 07:12:00 AM  
Blogger slimslowslider said...

Goesh said...

"I predict the Shias will simply vote once we are gone and decide to become part of Iran. Yup, just extend the borders. Simple really. Who will stop them? the UN security council? Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? How much oil is down there in Shiaville anyway? Can't you just see some Iranian military bases on the border with Jordan?"

Yep. A few more moves closer to check-mate. "It has been considered by Chess masters that increasing the positional advantages leads to a greater number of favorable tactical possibilities."

Three pawns are likely to be more useful than a knight in the Endgame. We are in the process of losing our knigts but hopefully their pawns won't weaken us to a point where our major pieces are also taken and the queen is left alone to defend the king.

11/09/2006 07:19:00 AM  
Blogger Ash said...

slimslowslider wrote:

"Hopefully their pawns won't weaken us to a point where our major pieces are also taken and the queen is left alone to defend the king."

Don't worry, Barney will be there to help Laura.

ahhhh, Bill gives us the simplistic

"Victory is destroying the enemy's will to resist."

to which recon noted the enemy being Iranian leaning shia. But I thought this was a war on terror? The enemy are Sunni Wahabists are they not? Ooops, sorry, Allen has the enemy as all of Islam. Thank god North Korea isn't an enemy....

hmmm puzzles abound, but just remember all we gotta do is destroy their will to resist. It IS simple, ya?

11/09/2006 07:42:00 AM  
Blogger Tom Grey said...

What is missing in Iraq is justice -- punishment against the mostly Sunni or Sunni supported terrorists.

Shia will increasingly support Death Squad justice, for "protection", rather than none. The Sunni who don't want a death squad questioning had better start organizing their own anti-terrorism gangs, before the death squads are too dominant and all the Americans are gone.

The Sunni terrorists are the key.


On Victory, the US supported pro-democracy forces win after the Sunnis stop supporting terrorism. In a Limited War, the timing of victory is up to the losers. Winners don't control the timing, only the losers do.

This lack of control has been driving the Dems crazy. They thought it was no control in gov't -- they will now find out it is a lack of control on the ground.

If the Dems withdraw, and more Iraqis are murdered, will the Dems' withdrawal get the blame? That is the key issue for pro-democracy folk.

The Dems did NOT get the blame for SE Asian Killing Fields after they cut funds in 1975 (after 1974 big victory!). They must get the blame now for every Iraqi death -- since the killers believe America will leave, which is why they keep killing.

11/09/2006 07:53:00 AM  
Blogger slimslowslider said...

Mark said...

"we will allow the emigration of several million Iraqis to the US, in order not to leave behind those we supported."

They won't be the only group that will need to be "emigrated" from the ME.

11/09/2006 07:56:00 AM  
Blogger Goesh said...

Yup, the key to Israel is Jordan, always has been. If I were a senior Iranian commander, I would be escalating attacks on US forces as much as possible, have al sadr's militia engage more actively and skip the attacks on civilians at this time. The Dems will give Bush about 3 months maximum to really turn things around then cut off the funding. Once gone from Iraq, Shia's can start to complain about the lack of security and ask Iran's direct assistance in protecting them from Sunnis and bandits (wink wink)/ "We ask our fellow Shi'ites in Iran to at least provide security for our mosques and shrines" - HA! I would take that to the UN if I were them! Can't you just hear Nancy Pelosi? " we strongly object to Iran putting cultural preservation forces into southern Iraq against the expresses wishes of the Iraqi government, but we also understand and respect the right of Muslims the world over to be able to practice their religion in peace. Iran gives full assurance that their cultural preservation forces will withdraw once the Iraqi goverment is capable of providing the needed security"

In the absence of US forces in Iraq, who here thinks the insertion of cultural preservation forces by Iran would be impossible? I think we are all avoiding the real issue here - the American people do not have the will to fight any war.

11/09/2006 08:02:00 AM  
Blogger Brother D-Day said...

The Arab Shia of Iraq will NOT vote to become part of Persian Shia Iran any more than the US will vote to become Anhuac Catholic Mexico because we have Irish, Polish and Italian Catholic communities.

Now should Persian Iran flood over the Iraqi border in demographic-shifting hordes to do the jobs that Arab Shia won't do, that might be a different story.

Ho hum. Onward to American Socialism!

11/09/2006 08:03:00 AM  
Blogger Westhawk said...

Dear Reocon:

You seem surprised and maybe a little annoyed to find Shi'ite Muslims living in Iraq. Since they are 60% of the population, we best accept that fact, and stop wishing that they were all from, say, Connecticut instead.

And why are hard, militant, and armed political parties leading Iraq's Shi'ites? That's a simple and logical reaction to living in that neighborhood and with Saddam's legacy. Once again, Iraq is not Connecticut.

You want to know what an American victory in Iraq will look like? America's objectives are to keep Al Qaeda out, and Iran from moving west. If you add in the contraint that Iraqis have to run Iraq, then the U.S. has to 1) pick the winning side in Iraq's civil war, 2) support that side until that side prevails inside Iraq, 3) condition that support on support for America's objectives (keeping Al Qaeda and Iran out).

As we have explained in further detail, the best way for the U.S. to "win" in Iraq is to support Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and his SCIRI party until it dominates southern and central Iraq. Most of Iraq's 4.8 million Sunni Arab will eventually end up in exile. This might lead to instability elsewhere in the region. But is likely the only way to end the conflict in Iraq.

Reocon, you might not like Mr. al-Hakim and his party. Unlike al-Sadr, he has cooperated with the Coalition, and he is the one force inside Iraq that can successfully confront al-Sadr and his organization.

Does this mean turning Iraq over to Iran? The best way to turn Iraq over to Iran is to shun, instead of support, Mr. al-Hakim. Just because he was in exile in Iran doesn't mean that he wants to be Iran's pawn in postwar Iraq. But he will end up that way if the U.S. walks away from him.

Westhawk

11/09/2006 08:28:00 AM  
Blogger Habu1 said...

The absolute best question you can ask yourself today is. Am I prepared to fight a guerilla war here in the United States?
If you answered NO then I suggest you begin your studies. Join a shooting club,study compass and map reading etc.
If you answered YES then become a mentor.
And if you laughed, well remember the parlor game "Lifeboat" where everyone was evaluated on what they brought to the survival table?
If you bring nothing, you are a liability.
Think it can't happen. Take a quick look at how many revolutions took place in civilized nations in 1848 in Europe. In Germany,France,Prague,Budapest,Florence,Rome,Naples,Sicily,Lyon,Paris...If you move down the line further you get 1917 in Russia and on and on. Think mankind is beyond that now..Yeah

11/09/2006 08:57:00 AM  
Blogger sirius_sir said...

Victory is destroying the enemy's will to resist.

Some of you may enjoy beating up on Bill for stating the obvious, but it is worth keeping in mind that his statement works both ways. Our enemy is just as intent on destroying our will to resist as we are on destroying his. Our country will never win any major war that a majority of Americans are persuaded to believe is for an unworthy cause or is otherwise illegitimate. That is where we are now with respect to Iraq, and the parallels to Vietnam in this case are exact, relevent, instructive. We will pull out of Iraq and lose by default. And those who have lobbied most vociferously for failure and defeat will take a bow, thinking they've won.

11/09/2006 09:22:00 AM  
Blogger skipsailing said...

Sadly, I agree with Habu here. It's time to take the advice of the Black Panthers:

Arm yourself or harm yourself.

Time to take that concealed carry class. Time to buy that "home defense special" shotgun that Gander Mountain has on sale.

Time to stock up on water and canned good.

Time to subscribe to the Detroit and Dearborn newspapers

11/09/2006 09:30:00 AM  
Blogger RegretLeft said...

Time for the last helicopter. ... yet again ... how discouraging

11/09/2006 09:32:00 AM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

mark said:

True, but fear not - you can bet that when we pull out, we will allow the emigration of several million Iraqis to the US, in order not to leave behind those we supported. Just like with the Vietnamese "boat people", the Cambodian Hmong, and the Somalis.

Depends on their politics. For instance, the nominally pro-immigration Democrats are loathe to swell the ranks of ex-pat Cubans in Miami, since they are such strong supporters of the GOP.

11/09/2006 09:33:00 AM  
Blogger Eggplant said...

Westhawk said...

"Reocon, you might not like Mr. al-Hakim and his party. Unlike al-Sadr, he has cooperated with the Coalition, and he is the one force inside Iraq that can successfully confront al-Sadr and his organization. Does this mean turning Iraq over to Iran? The best way to turn Iraq over to Iran is to shun, instead of support, Mr. al-Hakim. Just because he was in exile in Iran doesn't mean that he wants to be Iran's pawn in postwar Iraq."

I agree with Westhawk's analysis. The majority of the people in Iraq are Sunni Arabs. Note that they are Arabs and NOT Persians (Arabs and Persians hate each other). Unfortunately, Iraqi society is not yet ready for a Turkish style secular government (IMHO, the biggest disappointment of the Iraq war). A secular puppet government forced upon the Iraqis by the US would fail the moment our forces withdrew. The Iraqi government lead by Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim's party is unfortunately the best we can hope for. The question now stands whether we can make that government strong enough to stand on its own feet after Pelosi cuts off funding.

11/09/2006 09:37:00 AM  
Blogger Eggplant said...

Pardon me, I incorrectly said:

"The majority of the people in Iraq are Sunni Arabs."

Obviously, I should have said:

"The majority of the people in Iraq are Shiite Arabs."

11/09/2006 09:45:00 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

The Iraqis will get what they deserve when we pull out. They could have had and should have had a democracy a thousand dead soldiers ago. I hate to quit, but I hate filling Valhalla with so many of our warriors.

11/09/2006 09:59:00 AM  
Blogger epictetus said...

Pelosi and Bush agree to work together.

Discussions ongoing now about their bipartisan: No Iraqi Left Behind Act.

11/09/2006 10:06:00 AM  
Blogger Eggplant said...

Chris said...

"The Iraqis will get what they deserve when we pull out. They could have had and should have had a democracy a thousand dead soldiers ago. I hate to quit, but I hate filling Valhalla with so many of our warriors."

I agree. However the bottom line is that we need to keep Islamic fascist killing in the Middle East and not on the streets of New York. Unfortunately our new political alignment will probably not allow this.

11/09/2006 10:10:00 AM  
Blogger charlotte said...

I think Nancy's definition of victory is when an interviewer addresses you with an honorific-yet-to-come:

MARGARET WARNER: Madam Speaker-to-be, if I may call you that, welcome.

Victory for the Dems is when one’s dedicated troops are actually the losers when you win:

MARGARET WARNER: Madam speaker-to-be, thank you.

REP. NANCY PELOSI: Thank you, Margaret, media minion and socialist subject-to-be.

(Transcripts don’t pick up everything, but the madam said it all right.)

11/09/2006 10:17:00 AM  
Blogger Reocon said...

Westhawk wrote:
Reocon, you might not like Mr. al-Hakim and his party. Unlike al-Sadr, he has cooperated with the Coalition, and he is the one force inside Iraq that can successfully confront al-Sadr and his organization.

I'm sorry but that's lunacy. SCIRI is a front for Iran, and surely you must know this. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq crossed the Iranian border in '91 to lead the Shi'a uprising. As they did so they imposed Sharia and slapped up posters of the Ayatollah Khomenei! SCIRI has not changed its ideology (theology, really) or goals, they are cooperating with us because we are delivering so much.

Once again, Iraq is not Connecticut.

Of course, which is why I objected to a war to turn it into Connecticut. Remember, this was suppossed to be relatively easy, a "cakewalk", a "house of cards". Folly.

If you add in the contraint that Iraqis have to run Iraq, then the U.S. has to 1) pick the winning side in Iraq's civil war, 2) support that side until that side prevails inside Iraq, 3) condition that support on support for America's objectives (keeping Al Qaeda and Iran out).

1) Neither side is on our side.
2) That's not the strategy being pursued by Zalmay Khalilzad. He's trying to get the Sunni Islamists and the Shi'a Islamists to play nice and that effort is clearly failing.
3) If SCIRI is in, then Iran is in (Iran also has very close ties with Barzani in Kurdistan), and the Sunni are reliant on their Sunni brethren, some of which are al-Qaeda. If we try to crush the Sunni, then there's no hope for Khalilzad's reconciliation plan. If you're going to pick a side in point #1 then you're going to have to choose al-Qaeda or Iran. Or you can try to make peace with all your enemies (Khalilzad).

The best way to turn Iraq over to Iran is to shun, instead of support, Mr. al-Hakim. Just because he was in exile in Iran doesn't mean that he wants to be Iran's pawn in postwar Iraq.

My dear Hawk, Hakim wasn't just exiled in Iran he was trained in Iran! He fled there in 1980, at the age of 27, and founded SCIRI in Iran. SCIRI's military wing, the Badr brigade, was formed under the aegis of the Iranian military and revolutionay guards and they are actively part of the extra-state death squad phenomenon. When Donald Rumsfeld announced in late '05 that high explosives and IEDs were being imported from Iran, who do you think were receiving them? The Sunnis?

I'm not convinced that you know much about Hakim, SCIRI, their deep ties to Iran or their well stated goals. It was such ignorance that got us into this mess in the first place. Do a little bit more research into Hakim and SCIRI then tell me if you still think placing these obvious Islamofascists in power is worth a single American life.

11/09/2006 10:17:00 AM  
Blogger Reocon said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/09/2006 10:18:00 AM  
Blogger Old Dad said...

Let's wait and see what the blue dog freshmen do when it comes time to vote for Speaker. If Pelosi is elected, the Dems will likely lose the House in '08. She's mistaken if she thinks she has even a glimmer of a mandate. This election was about throwing the bums out, but w couldn't get them all this time around.

Keep blabbing Ms. Pelosi.

11/09/2006 10:24:00 AM  
Blogger Reocon said...

skipsailing said...
Sadly, I agree with Habu here. It's time to take the advice of the Black Panthers . .

Time to take that concealed carry class. Time to buy that "home defense special" shotgun that Gander Mountain has on sale.


If you've already got the shotgun, I suggest you graduate to this beauty:

http://www.gunblast.com/DPMS-AR10Carbine.htm

American Rifleman named it "Rifle of the Year", it's decently priced for its accuracy and quality and there's plenty of .308 to go around.

11/09/2006 10:25:00 AM  
Blogger Cabinboy said...

Actually, military surplus 7.62mm NATO ammo as used by the DPMS rifle is virtually sold out at all vendors.....hmmm.

Basic marksmanship instruction:

http://rwva.blogspot.com

Civilian Marksmanship Program:

http://www.odcmp.com

11/09/2006 10:41:00 AM  
Blogger Habu1 said...

eggplant,

throw a dart at a world map ... 80% of the time you'll hit a spot that hates the USA .. Persians may hate Arabs but they both hate the USA more.
We are in the worlds crosshairs..that is why preemption at this time in history is not an option but an imperative.

11/09/2006 10:50:00 AM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

I agree. However the bottom line is that we need to keep Islamic fascist killing in the Middle East and not on the streets of New York. Unfortunately our new political alignment will probably not allow this.

Nonsense. Americans of both political stripes, at least those west of the Hudson, will not tolerate the kind of activity we see from the "youths" in the suburbs around Paris. There will be a second Civil War if there's another terrorist attack and people realize the Democrats were painting America as the source of the problem.

11/09/2006 10:52:00 AM  
Blogger Tarnsman said...

Here's Tarnsman's prediction: Now that Democrats are in charge of one branch of the government watch for diminishing reporting from Iraq. Suddenly it will seem as if things have calmed down and that progress is being made. Watch for more reporting about the successes in Iraq, more about the good things that soldiers are acheiving: schools and hospitals being built, stories about Iraqi children flocking to be with the soldiers (which they have been doing for three plus years), etc, etc. The Democrats will say, "See, all was needed was for Rumsfeld to go and a new direction taken. Our strategy is the reason Iraq is on the path to democracy."
Mark my words.

11/09/2006 10:54:00 AM  
Blogger Habu1 said...

Here's the real deal today. If you thought George Orwell had something to say, read on friend.

Orwellian

11/09/2006 11:03:00 AM  
Blogger 2164th said...

I hate to pee on your parade, but if The Administration had taken care of business, there would not be a Speaker Pelosi.

11/09/2006 11:08:00 AM  
Blogger whit said...

I believe that the makeup of the Senate will be 49 Dems, 49 Republicans and 2 Ind.

How does that translate to the Dems being the majority party with a Speaker Pelosi?

11/09/2006 11:20:00 AM  
Blogger Eggplant said...

2164th said:

"I hate to pee on your parade, but if The Administration had taken care of business, there would not be a Speaker Pelosi."

Sad but true.

11/09/2006 11:20:00 AM  
Blogger Tarnsman said...

"I believe that the makeup of the Senate will be 49 Dems, 49 Republicans and 2 Ind.

How does that translate to the Dems being the majority party with a Speaker Pelosi?"

Pelosi is Speaker of the House (by virtue of the Democrats holding 240+ seats out of 435) , not Senate Majority Leader. Both the Independents have stated that they will vote with the Democrats to organize the Senate, thereby making the Democrats the majority.

11/09/2006 12:16:00 PM  
Blogger Woman Catholic said...

2164th said:

I hate to pee on your parade, but if The Administration had taken care of business, there would not be a Speaker Pelosi.

You can't blame Americans for voting for real Democrats when given a choice between real Democrats and Republicans pretending to be Democrats by outspending them and throwing the door open for illegals and having group hugs in Iraq.

11/09/2006 01:01:00 PM  
Blogger Yashmak said...

"There will be a second Civil War if there's another terrorist attack and people realize the Democrats were painting America as the source of the problem."

Nonsense, not with the media shilling for them. And even if you're right, that's all the more reason for the terrorists to try harder now. They'd love to see the USA go to war with itself. In fact, if what you say IS true, then it's a virtual certainty that voting in Democratic control of the House and Senate has made our country less safe.

11/09/2006 01:24:00 PM  
Blogger whit said...

Tarnsman;

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I knew that Pelosi is in the House.

Afraid I had a senior moment.

I did not know that Lieberman has committed to the Dems. Somehow missed that one.

11/09/2006 02:37:00 PM  
Blogger sirius_sir said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11/09/2006 03:57:00 PM  
Blogger sirius_sir said...

Iran also has very close ties with Barzani in Kurdistan

I guess that means we should cut him loose, too--again--along with all the rest of Iraqi Kurdistan, lest we be tempted to take Barzani at his word and believe we would be welcome to forge some kind of alliance that would acrue to the benefit of both parties.

(But speaking of parties, what is one to make of the name of his organization, the KDP--Kurdistan Democratic Party? Are we or are we not to judge these people solely by the acronyms they choose for themselves?)

It is true that Barzani and his organization has or has had close ties to Iran, most notably through the Kurdish Revolutionary Party of God (the so-called Kurdish Hezbollah). There also are or have been affiliations with The Army of Islam (linked to al Qaeda and bin Laden) and Islamic Unity in Kurdistan. These are all worrisome linkages and potentially troublesome, and yet Barzani seeks closer ties to the U.S., even desiring our physical presence.

Why should that be? The answer is he is hedging his bets. In a recent OpinionJournal article, Barzani explained the logic: Kurdish aspirations for autonomy, however, clearly require Turkish and Iranian acquiescence, or a persuasive reason for Turkey not to attack. Hence the desire for the redeployment of some American forces to Kurdistan. "The presence of American forces here would be a deterrent to intervention by the neighboring countries," Mr. Barzani says, with characteristic bluntness.

Of course, lacking an American deterrent it would only make sense for Barzani to maintain and even increase his alignment with whatever other groups might advance and strengthen his position.

[For] having been both saved and betrayed by previous American governments, he knows the risks of tying Kurdish fortunes too closely to an administration facing public disenchantment with its Iraq policies. "In building our new federal democratic country, our interests have not contradicted each other," he says cautiously. "They are aligned. But before I trust the United States or other people, I trust my own people."

Honestly, who can blame him?

11/09/2006 04:02:00 PM  
Blogger Westhawk said...

Dear Reocon:

We understand SCIRI's history and your concern with it. We all agree that the U.S. is now working with only a few undesirable options.

U.S. policymakers have to deal with these facts:

1) The Sunni Arabs will not run Iraq again. In fact, they are leaving the country, 100,000 per month.

2) The Shi'ites are 60% of the population (and growing).

3) The armed, religious Shi'ite parties, organized and trained in Iran during their exile, will dominate Shi'ite society.

4) Allowing al Qaeda a sanctuary in Iraq is unacceptable to the U.S.

5) Amb. Khalilzad's attempt to reconcile Iraq's political factions is the best first choice, but will almost certainly fail, because that is the way the Iraqis want it.

So what is a U.S. policymaker to do?

SCIRI has cooperated with the Coalition. In August 2005, al-Hakim's first son made the grand tour of Washington policymakers, trying to build a relationship with the West. Both sides have had a lot of contact over these years and have sized each other up.

Reocon, you are skeptical that these efforts by SCIRI to deal with the U.S. are sincere. That is understandable, and you are right to be skeptical.

But assuming Amb. Khalilzad's effort fails, the only choice the U.S. has at that point is to try to be on the best terms possible with the winning side in Iraq, and hope that it will have some influence in post-civil war Iraq.

And if that fails, the West will have to confront Iranian expansion directly. Many believe this will be the case regardless. For now though, the U.S. can face these issues sequentially.

Westhawk

11/09/2006 06:34:00 PM  
Blogger Reocon said...

Cabinboy said...
Actually, military surplus 7.62mm NATO ammo as used by the DPMS rifle is virtually sold out at all vendors

Yeah, those cans of Lake City ammo aren't as plentiful as they once were. Have you tried Cheaperthandirt.com?

Westhawk said . . .
Reocon, you are skeptical that these efforts by SCIRI to deal with the U.S. are sincere. That is understandable, and you are right to be skeptical.

Agreed.

And if that fails, the West will have to confront Iranian expansion directly. Many believe this will be the case regardless. For now though, the U.S. can face these issues sequentially.

I'm in the "regardless" camp, and believe that SCIRI and Iran are too closely allied for the sequential argument to make much sense.

11/09/2006 09:42:00 PM  
Blogger Abu Nudnik said...

It's a pity Warner didn't ask Pelosi what she thinks victory is. If this is her answer:

A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq
,

it shows a frightening ignorance of the situation in particular and political & military matters in general. Thank God she's not Commander-in-Chief.

11/10/2006 04:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are no winners in this Iraq war - politicians included. I wonder if the Democrats can do any better?

11/11/2006 04:31:00 PM  
Blogger Bill said...

"Bill, does that mean "destroying the will" of the Sadr/Badr/Maliki coalition that is democratically elected -- that is the will of the "government" with which we've been working with for so long? "

Reocon, “destrying the will to resist” means maintaining enough political unity and commitment to Maliki’s coalition for him to confront Sadr with confidence. Maliki is effectively the military commander in Iraq, and he can’t commit to perusing victory while watching polls of his “base” in the US turn against it.

Reccon, you see “what victory entails”. You’re just denying it.

11/13/2006 06:47:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Powered by Blogger