(2007-03-13) — The Democrat timeline for pulling U.S. troops from Iraq is designed to protect the United States against what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls “the threat and consequences of victory.”
The California lawmaker told reporters today that while Republicans focus on how the Democrat proposal undermines the troops and leads inevitably to defeat, “few have paused to consider the risk of victory.”
“A major triumph in the war on terror in Iraq would cause immeasurable political upheaval in the United States,” said Rep. Pelosi. “Unemployment would increase, especially among career politicians who opposed the president’s strategy. Countless millions of dollars would be wasted on doomed political campaigns.”
The Speaker noted that Democrats would be hardest hit by “the unfair distribution of misery” in the wake of a victory in Iraq.
With Iraq as a U.S. ally, trade would increase between the two nations, Rep. Pelosi said, creating more competition in international markets, and another place to which U.S. jobs might be outsourced, thus dealing a blow to domestic labor unions.
Tourism to Iraqi resorts and historical sites would eventually draw travelers away from similar destinations in the U.S. and Europe, she said.
In addition, with the second-largest petroleum reserves in the world in the hands of a U.S. ally, fuel prices at the pump could plummet below $2 per gallon, threatening the livelihood of convenience store owners.
Rep. Pelosi said the Bush administration has not even begun to consider the devastating impact on the self-esteem of Muslim fundamentalists should the Iraqi government ever become able to secure its own streets and borders.
Finally, Rep. Pelosi noted that if the Republican strategy for victory in Iraq succeeds, the United States will lose its best opportunity in a generation to inaugurate either a women, or an African American as president.
43 responses so far ↓
1 Darthmeister // Mar 13, 2007 at 7:59 am
Doh! Pelosi, Murtha and Reid are surrender monkeys.
2 Scott Ott // Mar 13, 2007 at 8:14 am
Pelosi War Plan Guards Against Risk of Victory…
by Scott Ott(2007-03-13) — The Democrat timeline for pulling U.S. troops from Iraq is designed to protect the United States against what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls “the threat and consequences of victory.â€The California lawmaker told report…
3 MargeinMI // Mar 13, 2007 at 8:18 am
Yikes! It’d be a double-whammy for Muslim convienence store owners (and their extended families, and you know what I’m talking about!)
God Bless America!
Good Morning, all!
4 mig // Mar 13, 2007 at 8:42 am
Pelosi adds another first to her bundle of hystorical achievements.
5 tomg // Mar 13, 2007 at 8:48 am
Fidelity’s Pelosi Hedge Fund shares plummeted upon publication of the Funds real objective in the online news report Scrappleface.
6 mig // Mar 13, 2007 at 9:03 am
AL Gore invented global warming.
John Kerry is a Presidential contender.
Pelosi is the bringer of American Peace.
Democrates are the Party of Friendship.
Schumer is an idiot.
Oh wait, that last one isn’t on this list.
7 Possumtrot // Mar 13, 2007 at 9:04 am
Back in the day, we used the term “Charlie Mike” to indicate a willingness to “Continue Mission.”
Those familiar with Charles Dickens will recognize Madame Pelosi as a member of the Defarge family. She sits and knits quietly as the gulliotine falls.
Making manners and apologizing for temperamental outbursts of my Irish temper atop Scorpion Hill…
8 gafisher // Mar 13, 2007 at 9:15 am
Possumtrot, it looks like our military could go from “Charlie Mike” to “Nancy Boys” in a big hurry if Pelosi gets her way.
9 University Update // Mar 13, 2007 at 9:23 am
Pelosi War Plan Guards Against Risk of Victory…
…
10 Ms RightWing, Ink // Mar 13, 2007 at 9:26 am
Shoot, you mean Disneyland is not the Mecca I searched for. Sigh, and here all my years in the dusty, smoky, earthquake ravaged ruins of S. Cal meant nothing.
Looks like I better call Camel Jockey Airlines and book a flight to Baghdad ASAP. I guess the devastated and heartbroken mindset of the American Taj Mahal will soon leave when I put down in the real Mecca.
Nancy the Nanny, you have brought me to my senses and soon the desserts of Arabia will await me. Meanwhile I must go see my Arab friends for a gallon of milk and some cheese nachos
11 Ms RightWing, Ink // Mar 13, 2007 at 9:35 am
As far as gas being less than $2 a gallon, when I go to Jose Bean Emporium and Taco Treasure I get gas for less than $4.95 a serving. The 99 cent menu is even better.
Let’s give thanks to our South of the Border cuisine and often culinary delights. Americans will not cook that cheap so it is important that we allow illegal cooks to cross our borders. Ole Nancy
12 Fred Sinclair // Mar 13, 2007 at 10:31 am
“….should the Iraqi government ever become able to secure its own streets and borders.”
Once accomplished, perhaps we could hire them to come to America and teach us how to secure our own streets and borders.
Heirborn Ranger
13 Ms RightWing, Ink // Mar 13, 2007 at 10:52 am
Darn that military–don’t they know boys just want to have fun. Sigh, Babs, what are we to do. More show tunes on Armed Forces Radio ought to help
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/11236490/detail.html
14 boberinyetagain // Mar 13, 2007 at 11:18 am
We should consider what should have been the first target right from the start, Saudi Arabia.
How is it that they got a “pass” on this whole mess? Good chance they supplied the funding and a certainty thay they supplied the hijackers yet we never said “boo” to them….how odd
15 Rock Slatestone // Mar 13, 2007 at 11:21 am
Grandma Pelosi, the new American Idle
16 Hawkeye // Mar 13, 2007 at 11:37 am
Excellent post Scott… Another classic!
17 Darthmeister // Mar 13, 2007 at 11:50 am
bober, attacking Saudi Arabia would have never flown in a post-9/11 world. I find it amazing you would even suggest such a thing since it was generally recognized (though the trust was certainly misplaced) by the world that Saudi Arabia was an Arab ally “cooperating” with American and coalition interest.
I don’t know what kind of fuzzy logic could lead someone to rail against making Iraq a “target”, an Iraq which has always been militarily hostile to its neighbors, America, and America’s interests abroad, and at the same time suggest we should have first targetted Saudi Arabia. I think this proves your arguments are NOT based on geo-political realities but rather are merely contrarian in nature. If America, i.e. the Bush Administration, had order an attack on Saudi Arab for the purposes of regime change, you probably would have been the first to whine that we are alienating Arab nations that posed no real threat to America (”al Qaeda wasn’t really in Saudi Arabia in force, the government wasn’t really giving safe haven to them, blah, blah, blah”) when Iraq and Iran were militarily more threatening and formidable than the backwater hellhole of Saudi Arabia.
18 GnuCarSmell // Mar 13, 2007 at 12:29 pm
“The thrill of defeat! The agony of victory!” â„¢
is a registered trademark of the DNC and may be used by anyone who shares the progressive anti-American values of Pelosi and her ilk.
19 Shelly // Mar 13, 2007 at 12:50 pm
So much for “in it to win it.”
20 boberinyetagain // Mar 13, 2007 at 1:05 pm
hank, contrarian? How is attacking the nation that supplied 16 of the 18 people that actually attacked and sillier than attacking the nation that supplied none of them?
OK, lets not attack them right off the bat but a stern talking to was, at a bare minimum, required. Did that happen?
No
We attacked someone with no link to it at all. That is and what has always been, the “problem” with the war.
Concentrate on Afghanistan, commit 1/2 of the resources we “wasted” in Iraq and the one man that actually stood up and said “I did it and I’m glad I did it and I would/will do it again given the chance” might have been caught (or at least 1 region might be far more stable instead of 2 arenas out of control)
Believe it or not, many Americans, patriots even, wanted “revenge” for a cowardly attack on our people. The problem was/remains to be, that has not happened and does not appear to be about to happen and, yep, we still aren’t “over” it.
Is that rational enough for you?
21 Rogue100 // Mar 13, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Bober,
Bin Laden was in Afghanistan…hellllooooo….then, in December 2001 they augmented Ansar Al-Islam in IRAQ — you know, the place we attaacked in March 2003. This is public knowledge and was reported by the BBC (no friend of Bush) and a Canadian strategic think tank (read: Liberal eggheads).
Attacking Saudi Arabia would have been a DumbasCrap party war plan (because Saudi Arabia is rich and contributes to Global Warming).
Regarding General Peter Pace’s riff on gays in the military, the edited text is here: Peter’s Blunder
22 Rogue100 // Mar 13, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Boober,
Would you recommend we violate Pakistan’s sovereignty by chasing Bin Laden into the Pakistani Tribal Areas?
Al Qaeda is growing
23 Darthmeister // Mar 13, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Rational? Do you have evidence that the Saudi Arabian government greenlighted (supplied) those 15 of 19 hijackers in order to slam jetliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon? I’d like to see it.
But since we’re at liberty to connect-the-dots here (thanking you for opening that door) similarly its completely false for you to assert that Iraq didn’t have some kind of working relationship with al Qaeda and other international terrorist groups.
I’ve linked to recently translated Iraqi documents which prove there was an al-Qaeda link to Saddam’s regime. But apparently you, in your infinite wisdom, have stubbornly chosen to either ignore or discount the proof I’ve put before your eyes. Interesting how you strain at gnats but swallow camels.
Here is part of the translated text to Iraqi document CMPC-2003-001488.pdf:
In the Name of God the Merciful
Presidency of the Republic
Intelligence Apparatus
To the respectful Mr. M.A.M
Subject: Information
Our source in Afghanistan No 11002 (for information about him see attachment 1) provided us with information that that Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him the following:
1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama Bin Laden group visited Iraq.
2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama Bin Laden group have shown cooperation to hit target within America.
3. That in case it is proven the involvement of Osama Bin Laden group and the Taliban in these destructive operations it is possible that American will conduct strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
4. That the Afghani Consul heard about the subject of Iraq relation with Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran.
5. In light of this we suggest to write to the Commission of the above information.
Please view… Yours… With regards
Signature:……, Initials : A.M.M, 15/9/2001
Also Iraqi documents CMPC-2004-00567.pdf and CMPC-2004-005285.pdf further implicate the Iraqi government as being involved in the general jihad declared against America and American interests around the world because of the Fatwa issued by the International Islamic Conference Organization which had met in Baghdad before the war.
Where’s your documentary evidence that the Saudi Government conspired with 15 Saudi terrorists to hijack American aircraft and fly them into civilian buildings? Put up or shut up, bober.
24 Ms RightWing, Ink // Mar 13, 2007 at 3:06 pm
I thought when you are “da boss,” you can hire and fire people at will. Guess that is okay when you are a Democriter, but not a Publican. I guess if you are the attorney who gets the boot, then and then only is it a big deal.
Zeech, people act like they never been fired before.
25 JamesonLewis3rd // Mar 13, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Ah, well…
Yes, that is the “problem”.
The Iraqi front in the GWOT in particular, does not and never did have any direct connection to 9/11 insofar as retaliation is/was concerned. That is a common fallacy/lie among the Leftist Liberal Loony Islamofascist-loving traitor/cowards. It is not ancient history and it should be quite simple to read up on the actual facts as to why all of Capitol Hill (except for the basest of the sniveling cowards) were all for the invasion.
However, the GWOT and the Iraqi front DO have a connection in the prevention of another such incident (or worse, as illustrated in my comment on the previous thread). And only a fool/liar would think/say otherwise.
26 JamesonLewis3rd // Mar 13, 2007 at 3:34 pm
From Power Line:
Here’s part of what Sen. Lieberman said in his speech yesterday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee:
There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the war in Iraq seems to inspire greater passion than opposition to Islamist extremism. There is something profoundly wrong when there is so much distrust of our intelligence community that some Americans doubt the plain and ominous facts about the threat to us posed by Iran. And there is something profoundly wrong when, in the face of attacks by radical Islam, we think we can find safety and stability by pulling back, by talking to and accommodating our enemies, and abandoning our friends and allies. Some of this wrong-headed thinking about the world is happening because we’re in a political climate where, for many people, when George Bush says “yes,” their reflex reaction is to say “no.” That is unacceptable.
Lieberman concluded his speech with the following words:
The esteemed historian of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis, was in Washington this past week. He said that, when he looks at the world today and the threats we face, it reminds him of the 1930s—and that he hears far more voices that sound like Chamberlain than like Churchill. And so I challenge each of you to find the voice of Churchill inside yourself, and let it be heard this week on Capitol Hill and throughout the nation in the days and years ahead.
Stand up for your arguments. Stand up for your principles. Stand up for your values. Stand up for America. Stand up for Israel. Stand up for freedom. And have confidence that in the end, our cause will, with God’s help, prevail. (Emphasis mine)
Amen to that.
27 JamesonLewis3rd // Mar 13, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Please, pray for the Gathering of Eagles this Saturday in DC.
28 boberinyetagain // Mar 13, 2007 at 3:44 pm
There’s this…
Sources tell CBS the redacted section lays out a money trail between Saudi Arabia and supporters of al Qaeda, reports CBS White House Chief Correspondent John Roberts.
Among others, it singles out Omar al-Bayoumi, who gave financial assistance to 9-11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar.
The FBI charges al-Bayoumi, an official of the Saudi civil aviation authority, never lacked for money and is believed to have received funds from a charitable trust run by the wife of the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. The Saudis, for all their protestations of cooperating in the war on terror, still refuse to allow the FBI access to al-Bayoumi.
Or this…
Graham also disclosed that General Tommy Franks told him on Feb. 19, 2002, four months after the invasion of Afghanistan, that many important resources — including the Predator drone aircraft crucial to the search for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda leaders — were being shifted to prepare for a war against Iraq.
Graham, who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee from June 2001 through the buildup to the Iraq war, voted against the war resolution in October 2002 because he saw Iraq as a diversion that would hinder the fight against Al Qaeda terrorism.
He oversaw the Sept. 11 investigation on Capitol Hill with Representative Porter Goss. According to Graham, the FBI and the White House blocked efforts to investigate the extent of official Saudi connections to two hijackers.
You have your sources, I have mine. Whoop de do…
Are you saying the Saudis are fair and balanced people deserving of our protection? Is that because of the way they regard women or their sterling human rights positions in general? Wanna see some quotes on those by any chance?
29 Bill's Bites // Mar 13, 2007 at 3:56 pm
2007.03.13 Surrenderpolitik update…
There is something profoundly right about Joe LiebermanPaul Mirengoff Here’s part of what Sen. Lieberman said in his speech yesterday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee: There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the war in Ir…
30 camojack // Mar 13, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Yes, wouldn’t want to ruin anyone’s self-esteem by beating them or anything…
31 Darthmeister // Mar 13, 2007 at 6:58 pm
boberin, that’s all hearsay … whoop de do.
Is there the smoking gun that proves the SAUDI GOVERNMENT was directly involved in financing al Qaeda’s efforts to conduct its jihad against American interests?
I first railed against the Saudi people nearly four years ago because even then there is little doubt many Wahabist Saudis are sympathetic to Islamic terrorist organizations including that of Hamas. You bet there have been individual Saudis (remember OBL is himself a Saudi) and even individual Saudi officials who may have funneled funds to al Qaeda. Keep in mind this is a nation whereby INDIVIDUAL Saudis were holding help-the-terrorist telethons! And I wouldn’t have minded one bit if these Saudi scum were rounded up and put in front of a wall and shot by a firing squad.
But I bet if an investigation was done with regard to virtually every Arab state in the region you’d find many individual Muslims and more than a few government officials personally funneling money to any number of international terrorists organizations. So do we blow them all up? Maybe we should.
But I find it odd that you have one threshold of “proof” for Saudi government involvement with al Qaeda which is far lower than the level of proof demanded by those on your side of the aisle for an Iraqi – al Qaeda connection. BTW, I produced actual documents proving my claims, you have only the word of the liberal media. And therein lies the problem, bober, you think everything the media publishes is God’s own truth, but actual Iraqi documents which demonstrate the connections between al Qaeda and Hussein’s regime is merely “a source”. How about tightening up your thinking for a change.
32 Darthmeister // Mar 13, 2007 at 6:59 pm
… Pelosi stole my post.
33 Pros and Cons » The news I’ve been hearing from Iraq is pretty good. // Mar 13, 2007 at 9:06 pm
[...] The US is mainitaining its own tempo on the ground and not dealing with the bad actors behind the backs of our Iraqi allies, as we so often would with the South Koreans or South Vietnamese in the past, just to be seen to be “talking”. This far is better. Our options, as a nation, in the event of failure are not good, though upon inspection there are some who would seem to prefer it to victory and some who certainly would. A strategy of bloody punitive raids might make local powers reluctant to challenge us, but how to exact bloody vengeance for future terrorist attacks is a puzzle for a representative government that likes to think of itself as, and one that generally is, benevolent. Better by far to win, and, except for in the non-Iraqi media, we are. Even there, and despite oceans of ink spent on bad press, the popular mood remains remarkably pro-military, which is another nice change from Vietnam. [...]
34 JamesonLewis3rd // Mar 13, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Here’s yet another example of Pelosi’s clueless ineptitude.
And, by the way, General Pace was not being judgmental as Pelosi suggests, but I wouldn’t expect her to understand the concept of discernment, either.
35 Darthmeister // Mar 13, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Joe Lieberman said this yesterday:
There is something profoundly wrong when opposition to the war in Iraq seems to inspire greater passion than opposition to Islamist extremism. There is something profoundly wrong when there is so much distrust of our intelligence community that some Americans doubt the plain and ominous facts about the threat to us posed by Iran. And there is something profoundly wrong when, in the face of attacks by radical Islam, we think we can find safety and stability by pulling back, by talking to and accommodating our enemies, and abandoning our friends and allies. Some of this wrong-headed thinking about the world is happening because we’re in a political climate where, for many people, when George Bush says “yes,” their reflex reaction is to say “no.” That is unacceptable.
The esteemed historian of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis, was in Washington this past week. He said that, when he looks at the world today and the threats we face, it reminds him of the 1930s—and that he hears far more voices that sound like Chamberlain than like Churchill. And so I challenge each of you to find the voice of Churchill inside yourself, and let it be heard this week on Capitol Hill and throughout the nation in the days and years ahead.
Amen, Mr. Lieberman.
36 JamesonLewis3rd // Mar 13, 2007 at 9:47 pm
RE: #35~~
Darthmeister~~
I said the same thing…..
37 RedPepper // Mar 14, 2007 at 4:11 am
JL3 #36: I can’t resist this one. Here is the reason that “ … the esteemed historian … Bernard Lewis … was in Washington this past week … †; for the award ceremony!
38 RedPepper // Mar 14, 2007 at 4:37 am
Those of you who can appreciate a little dark humour with your morning coffee might get a few chuckles out of this column :
Closing Time in the West by Tony Blankley.
Just think of it as mental chicory!
39 Ms RightWing, Ink // Mar 14, 2007 at 7:24 am
Morning all. So, just what will the Democritters do today.
Sitting back and waiting from the Plaza Astoria’s 7th floor
40 Ms RightWing, Ink // Mar 14, 2007 at 9:35 am
The pulse of America must be scouring the Internet. The morning is fast departing with no insightful commentary.
Two cups of coffee and still no answer for America. sigh
41 Darthmeister // Mar 14, 2007 at 10:40 am
So let me get this straight. For political reasons liberal U.S. Attorneys don’t vigorously pursue voter fraud cases against liberal Democrats. Attorney General Gonzales then cans these incompetent partisans and he’s guilty of “politicizing” the judicial process despite the fact the U.S. Constitution explicitly states the U.S. Attorneys serve only at the pleasure of the Exective Branch which indeed make them “political appointments”.
Add to this fact Bill Clinton fired all 96 U.S. Attorneys and put his own hand-picked people in place without complaint from Republicans OR DEMOCRATS! Once again Democrats prove to be the basest of all hypocrites for calling for Gonzales to resign.
42 Darthmeister // Mar 14, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Your right JL3rd. My bad! I can’t believe I didn’t see your posting because usually I’ll read everything on the thread. I guess Lieberman’s statement was so good it bore repeating! I’ll just chalk it up to a bad airhead day for me.
43 A Second Hand Conjecture » News Flash- The Senate Democrats Anti-Iraq Campaign Lies in Tatters-updating with other opinions periodically // Mar 15, 2007 at 6:25 pm
[...] Scrappleface: The Democrat timeline for pulling U.S. troops from Iraq is designed to protect the United States against what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls “the threat and consequences of victory.â€The California lawmaker told reporters today that while Republicans focus on how the Democrat proposal undermines the troops and leads inevitably to defeat, “few have paused to consider the risk of victory.†[...]
You must log in to post a comment.