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'?"
posted by wretchardthecat at 11/08/2006 07:20:00 PM
52 Comments:
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.
Indeed. The speaker -- intelligence is elusive. Intelligence is subjective. Does she know what I mean by 'the speaker is an idiot'?
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.
Can you spell "No shit, Sherlock"?
Here's a quote that may provide a window into her thinking.
Thinking?
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?
“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!
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!
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.
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.
(of course they are ALL documented)
The meaning of "valid documents" being subjective as well.
Oh, posh and bother, we're ALL subjectivians now.
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.
I guess you could say beheadings are subjective, and certainly the subjects will not disagree.
oh, jeez, when I hear stuff like that--it's a good thing I don't have the Red Button handy.
"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. @_@
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.
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.
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...
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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
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
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.
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.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Here's the real deal today. If you thought George Orwell had something to say, read on friend.
Orwellian
I hate to pee on your parade, but if The Administration had taken care of business, there would not be a Speaker Pelosi.
"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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
There are no winners in this Iraq war - politicians included. I wonder if the Democrats can do any better?
"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.
Post a Comment
<< Home